El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 22:39 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> > El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 21:43 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> >> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> >>> I volunteer to do whatever conversions you want for every ebuild I find
> >>> if I have time... what prevents me from doing it is to commit that
> >>> changes to ebuilds not maintained by me and not knowing if developers
> >>> agree on using latest eapi if possible. A more general solution (or
> >>> policy) needs to be worked as, otherwise, tree won't be moved to latest
> >>> eapi ever because we would need to:
> >>> - Periodically send bugs + patches
> >>> - Ask for permission to commit
> >>>
> >>> And that for every eapi bump
> >>>
> >>
> >> Either an ebuild has a responsive maintainer, which you can ask friendly
> >> to bump the EAPI because of feature X you would like to use or there is
> >> no maintainer, in which case you are free to touch/bump or last rite the
> >> ebuild.
> >>
> >> So i still dont see any need or requirement for a policy to
> >> force/require all devs to always use or switch to the latest avaidable
> >> EAPI. As already written in this thread, it would just mean less new
> >> ebuilds and less version bumps with such a policy. And i also prefer
> >> more work done with older EAPI versions around then less ebuilds/new
> >> versions with latest EAPI.
> >>
> >
> > Seriously, what people is still having problems with handling eapi4? If
> > there are doubts about its usage, they should be asked and resolved
> > instead of ignored keeping ebuilds with older eapis. The only eapi that
> > probably adds no advantage for a lot of ebuilds is eapi3, but that is
> > not the case for eapi4 for example, that includes changes that should be
> > incorporated by most packages in the tree, some of them introduced by it
> > and others inherited from older eapis.
> >
> > What is the advantage of using eapi2 over eapi4 for example? What "hard
> > to learn" change was included in eapi4 over eapi2?
> >
>
> This is not about "having problems with handling eapi-X", this is just
> about limited time and the choice where to spend that time. If you do
> just a version bump, you often dont have to touch the ebuild at all,
> just copy, test, commit and be happy. If you additionally require an
> EAPI bump, this means to carefully check the ebuild, adjust it to the
> new EAPI and additionally check, that the expected haviour is also the
> one that happens. While doing this, i could also have fixed another bug
> or have done another version bump. And that was already expressed in my
> first response. I nowhere claimed to have problems with EAPI bumps, just
> that they require additional time, so reducing the amount of time left
> to create new ebuilds/fix bugs/do version bumps. And with the choice, i
> prefer the new ebuilds/fixed bugs/version bumps over an ebuild switched
> to a new EAPI.
>
> So my question to you: What is the advantage of using ${NEW_EAPI} over
> using ${OLDER_EAPI}, when the ebuild does the same and the result is the
> same?
> I already explained the advantages, simply take a look to: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/eapi/index.html to see that, for example, --disable-dependency-tracking won't be used by default for older eapis. The same will occur with eapi5 and --disable-silent-rules or running tests in parallel. That time you think you are saving, will be need to be lost if, for example, some QA policy appears in the future to move to try to run tests in parallel when possible, or force verbose output.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
