On Friday 09 October 2009 00:22:26 Petteri Räty wrote: > >> across a case that couldn't be done with EAPI 2 yet. Granted the atoms > >> can be a bit cleaner with EAPI 3 but considering how much zmedico slacks > >> in implementing it, it's best to do migrating now with EAPI 2 than EAPI > > > > Comments like these are not acceptable. Zac works his tail off on > > portage. Please refrain from such comments in the future. > > -Jeremy > > He has said himself that he is not especially interested in implementing > EAPI 3 so slack at least to me seems like a good term.
I'm not sold on it either. Most devs barely know the difference between different EAPIs (just extrapolating from the many questions I see e.g. on IRC) (and I think they shouldn't have to know because we should be using one EAPI only, but that's just my random opinion) Most ebuilds are still EAPI0 - rough count gives me: EAPI 0 - 19654 EAPI 1 - 1651 EAPI 2 - 5497 And that's with all the "forced" migrations for features like use-deps or the removal of built_with_use. So unless there's some "strongly needed" features there's no need for it. I can't remember any feature in the EAPI 3 list that really looked useful to me, so not adding it now now now doesn't bother me at all. Just causes more confusion for no real benefit. So who cares if it is delayed by a few timeunits, there's much more important stuff to do.
