El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 16:29 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió: [...] > > And finally, as already pointed out by Rich, you should not talk about > > any specific EAPI you like/prefer/want to be used everyhwere, but > > instead about the issue you want to solve. So just point out the issue > > and ask the maintainer to fix it. If he uses a newer EAPI, good. If he > > uses another solution, which also fixes the issue, also good. We should > > not discuss about a specific way to solve some issues, since this is the > > maintainers choice. Our goal should instead be to fix as many issues as > > possible with our limited amount of time we have for Gentoo. > > > > > > I have already pointed multiple examples where bumping eapi will help to > improve things, not doing so because of that hypothetical problems you > think could occur only leads us to current situation: a ton of autotools > packages won't get --disable-silent-rules/--disable-dependency-tracking > improvements because people doesn't even try to bump eapi, some more > packages will hide utilities failing but not dying because of using old > eapis, inconsistent blockers handling around the tree due using > different eapis, packages still relying on dying in pkg_setup instead of > setting proper USE deps, packages still using dohard and dosed, html > files in /usr/share/doc being compressed because of old eapi usage, I > even noticed past week a package still using ebeep.
Another case: all packages should benefit from mtimes preserving for installed files since eapi3
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
