> I can't say I'm a big fan of this. This requires forcing changes to > ebuilds that offer no actual benefit to either the maintainer or the > end-users (changes that actually have some benefit to either are > likely to be made anyway). The PM maintainers have chimed in that > there is no benefit to PM maintenance from this change.
EAPI 0 is more readable than EAPI 4? No benefit for maintainer? No benefit for user who wants to read the ebuild? Realy? > So, I can't really see what the upside of such a policy is. > > The downsides are several - you're taking code that works and fiddling > with it, perhaps creating code that doesn't work. You're forcing that > development to take place in the newest EAPI, which is also the > version which the everybody has the least experience with (likely less > documentation online as well). devmanual is fine. > Developers have only a limited amount of time, and this will eat into > it. The result is likely to not be new shiny ebuilds that use the new > EAPIs, but rather old rusty ones that still use the old EAPI but also > which contain other bugs, since they don't get touched at all (since > touching them triggers the new policy). You dont need to touch the old ebuild, but if you are touching it for example a version bump, a bug fix etc you should be able to do the EAPI bump as long as you have done the ebuild quizzes ;) > For a real-world analogy - look at the result of well-intended laws > that require ADA compliance and such on building modifications. The > result is often stuff like kids taking classes in modular trailers and > such because in order to add an extension to the building you need to > bring the entire building up to code (and not just the new part). The > result isn't more elevators and ramps - but the use of hacked together > solutions to work around the policy. Examples? > If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Essential part of software development is refactoring to get the code in a modern state. > Now, if a maintainer actually needs a feature of a new EAPI, or an > ebuild contains a bug that can only be addressed by bumping it, then > by all means the maintainer should be revising the ebuild. Then there > is actually an upside to balance the cost. True. > Rich Greetings, -- Johannes Huber (johu) Gentoo Linux Developer / KDE Team GPG Key ID F3CFD2BD
