El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 08:14 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: > On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:07:39 +0200 > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 17:43 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió: > > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:53:18 +0200 > > > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > Were you around when eapi2 got out and we had a bunch of packages > > > running econf twice because we wanted to quickly get rid of > > > built_with_use? > > > > > > A 5 mins fix is a 5 mins fix, if you include an eapi bump in those 5 > > > mins then i expect crap to be committed to the tree or nothing at all. > > > > Of course the idea wouldn't be to deprecate older eapis as soon as newer > > one is released but, for example, do you really think forcing people to > > use eapi4 now would cause so many problems? We could even create a team > > (I would join to that one of course) to help in migration process. > > Well, creating a team dedicated to the cause is a good idea anyway. > Without a policy or anything like that, the team could at least work on > improving compatibility of eclasses with new EAPIs. >
Yes, fine
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
