Pacho Ramos schrieb: > El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 16:09 +0200, Thomas Sachau 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. >> >> > > Also, I see your point, the problem is: > - Do we agree we should move to packages with splitted > src_configure/prepare phases? In that case eapi >=2 should be enforced.
I see no need for EAPI>=2 enforcement. The main advantage here is mostly the saved second default line from src_unpack/src_compile. This does not outweight the additional work for the EAPI-change. > - Do we agree mtimes should be preserved? In that case eapi >=3 should > be pushed because all ebuilds will use that enhancement. If a package has issues with not preserved mtimes, sure, bump it to EAPI>=3 to fix the issue. In any other case, there is no advantage at all for the additional work. > Regarding other issues like --disable-dependency-tracking, do you know > any way to automate a check for knowing if a package that could benefit > from it (one using autotools) could pass it or not? If such a check > could exist, then, we would be able to only move that packages to newer > eapi (or pass option manually) and that would be enough to me. The same > would occur with --disable-silent-rules. Either ask our tinderbox users to do a full tree check or do such tinderbox setup/run yourself. There is no other automate way then to check each package, since you cant say for sure from the outside, what sort of build system is used. > --disable-dependency-tracking problem, or check that every package > needing revdep-rebuild will be moved to eapi5... The most likely solution for this one will be, that whenever someone gets results from revdep-rebuild (or sees a message from @preserved-rebuild), he asks the lib maintainer to use the new dependency type from EAPI-5 to avoid this in the future. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
