On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Saturday 21 March 2009 22:26:41 Alec Warner wrote: >> >> > > 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. > > Well, ciaran said that the same thing happens that always happens when lots of > ebuilds get changed. Last time I saw that happen (think KDE4) we got some nice > herd testers plus a new dev or two, so I am confused too. Maybe ciaran can > explain what he meant to say so we don't have to come to unexpected > conclusions (that would actually be a quite nice change to the average > discussion - saying what you mean instead of hinting at star constellations > and the importance of meat loaf) > >> > So what technical reason(s) do we have to keep archaic EAPIs around >> > forever? >> None, luckily this is more than a technical project ;) > > Stop confusing me, antarus, I thought you were against removing eapi0 and now > you support the removal? ;)
Editing 20000 ebuilds is not 'technical' in nature, its grunt work. It is a social problem, not a technical one. I also haven't stated my support in either direction since you have provided no specific arguments as to why we should do this; there is nothing to argue against. > > Anyway. Most of the "porting" effort (assuming no other issues sneaking in) > would be adding a "EAPI=1" line to ebuilds, which could be done "lazily" on > version bumps. There's no rush to get it killed now now now, but in a year we > might be at EAPI 5, and then I don't want to be the one writing the docs that > split apart what features are where and what syntax is valid and all that. Or we might be at EAPI 3; we have no EAPI roadmap and I don't like guessing. Again I'm looking for specifics here. You are asking the community to do a lot of work for relatively little gain; because you haven't specified what the gain is. So I ask again "What specific problems does this solve?" > > So phasing out eapi0 would be an obvious step towards making things simpler > for those of us that don't enjoy studying lists and tables ... > > > Patrick > > >
