On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:03:07 +0200 hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 09/02/2012 12:52 PM, Vaeth wrote: > > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> If I thought that bumping the EAPI would make my life as a > >> maintainer easier I'd just do it - I wouldn't need a policy to > >> tell me to do it. > > > > It is not only so much a question of whether it helps you as a > > maintainer but more whether it helps the user. And this is the case > > for all EAPIs which currently exist. > > > > I am surprised that nobody mentioned the following example: > > > > One of the arguments to introduce the user-patching code into EAPI=5 > > was that it should work for all packages - not randomly on some but > > not on others. So if in the course of time not all packages are > > bumped to at least EAPI=5, this goal cannot be reached by > > introducing the feature into the EAPI. > > global epatch_user has a downside which I think was not even really > discussed here unless I missed something. It could introduce many > bogus bug reports which are caused by user-applied patches, cause > it's easier now and you don't need to do it in an overlay. > The maintainer will need to catch this and asking which repo the > bugreporter did use is not sufficient. He will need the build log and > check if user patches got applied there. it is probably easy to add a big warning 'user patches have been applied' when emerge bails out because a build failed
