El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 17:15 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió: [...] > I am not talking about hypothetical problems, i am talking about a real > thing: my limited amount of free time i am able and willing to spend for > Gentoo. And i prefer spending it on fixing real bugs over spending > additional time to bump the EAPI just for fun. > > For the points you see issues with: > - dont miss, that one can also add those configure options in an ebuild > without the requirement to use the EAPI. > -Utilities failing but not dying? Only certain helper functions will die > with EAPI-4, nothing else. And if in doubt, just add a " || die" after > every call and be done with it. So also not related to the EAPI. > -blocker handling is done by the PM, not the ebuild, so if you have a > patch for a better UI output, PM maintainers will probably happily apply > it, when you provide it. > -for a die in pkg_setup instead of a USE dependency: Both ways will > prevent you from continuing, the second one only has a unified UI. > -I dont see any real problem with dosed and dohard, they are just > wrappers around sed and ln, so what would improve if someone replaces > the wrappers with calls to the wrapped tools? > > We could continue forever with this examples, so i will shorten my point > of view: > > If i want/need an option, i will add it to the ebuild. If an option i > want requires a newer EAPI, i will use the newer EAPI. If the current > EAPI does offer all i need, i wont spend any additional time on the EAPI > bump. > > If you want to do it differently for the packages you maintain, fine. > Just dont try to force your preferred EAPI-handling on everyone else. > >
It's not just for fun, I have just replied to you in other mail, hope it helps to explain better my position and why I thought bumping eapi would be better.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
