On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:55:20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100 >> >> Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which >> > eapi has which features available. And eapi1 is a superset of eapi0, >> > so we don't have to rewrite tons of things. >> >> So? When people do new things, they can move the EAPI forward. That's >> not a reason to modify existing things. > > The added complexity of having a dozen eapis does not offer any benefits to > the average developer. Limiting the amount of complexity tends to reduce the > amount of errors, be it simple developer mistakes or unexpected interaction > errors between different EAPIs in the package manager.
But you are still talking around the issue. Your logic is that "lots of EAPIs mean its harder to write ebuilds." I buy that argument (complexity implies difficult, no problem!) but it is a very generic argument. What about the complexity of many EAPIs are developers having issues with? What can we do to mitigate these problems? Are people using IUSE_DEFAULTS in EAPI0? Are they not bumping the EAPI when adding src_configure to an ebuild? You claim there are all kinds of problems, I want to hear about them so we can fix the tools (aka repoman) to help point out where developers go wrong so they can fix them. Over 80% of the tree is still EAPI0, so deprecating it seems a bad choice at this time, even for a 12-16 month timeline. > >> > > Introducing a policy encouraging moving things that definitely >> > > aren't in the least bit likely to be a system dep on a bump, sure. >> > > Making 1 or 2 the default for new packages, sure. But rewriting >> > > existing things? That's just an accident waiting to happen. >> > >> > What kind of accident do you expect to happen? >> >> The same kind that always happens when lots of ebuilds get changed. > > ... lots of new features and a few bugs that get fixed the next day? Hey, that > sounds quite bad. And maybe some new herd testers? How rude! I don't see the correlation between EAPI bumps and new herd testers. > > So what technical reason(s) do we have to keep archaic EAPIs around forever? None, luckily this is more than a technical project ;) > > Patrick > >
