-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 30/08/12 08:30 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Johannes Huber <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> EAPI 0 is more readable than EAPI 4? No benefit for maintainer?
>> No benefit for user who wants to read the ebuild? Realy?
>
> Then why make it a policy?
>
("Realy?" in the above specifies the statement was sarcastic)
> If as you say there is a benefit to the maintainer, then you won't
> have to hit them over a head for noncompliance. Just point out
> that newer EAPIs make things easier, and they'll happily use the
> new EAPIs if they agree. If they don't agree, who cares?
>
> You don't need a policy to tell somebody to do something in their
> own interest. The main reason for policy is to get people to do
> things that are in the interests of others.
>
The primary benefit to the policy that dev's should bump EAPI when
bumping ebuilds is so that older inferior EAPIs can be deprecated and
eventually removed from the tree.
Take, for example, the sub-slot and slot-operator support that will
hopefully be applied as part of EAPI=5 -- when this is integrated
across the tree, there will be little to no purpose for revdep-rebuild
and/or @preserved-libs. But this tree-wide integration would never
happen if said policy didn't exist, ie, I think this is a good example
of "interests of others".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlA/ZNEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAthAD/XDwdxGj/cDprcFUtPUtklPaU
6KbooOamqxFJrfVxMbgBAJ56bQ+TYrYQ+eSvV+38bknCsp1+bKWfwXa1GxSERJha
=iaCP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
