On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Johannes Huber <j...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> scarabeus suggested the change "dev should use latest eapi when bumping" >> to "dev must use latest eapi when bumping if not forbidden by eclasses". >> He was asked to bring it up on the mailing lists, to get a better >> definition of when what EAPI should be used. > > I raised the issue through scarabeus, as in my opinion there is no reason to > not use latest EAPI. So please discuss. >
I can't say I'm a big fan of this. This requires forcing changes to ebuilds that offer no actual benefit to either the maintainer or the end-users (changes that actually have some benefit to either are likely to be made anyway). The PM maintainers have chimed in that there is no benefit to PM maintenance from this change. So, I can't really see what the upside of such a policy is. The downsides are several - you're taking code that works and fiddling with it, perhaps creating code that doesn't work. You're forcing that development to take place in the newest EAPI, which is also the version which the everybody has the least experience with (likely less documentation online as well). Developers have only a limited amount of time, and this will eat into it. The result is likely to not be new shiny ebuilds that use the new EAPIs, but rather old rusty ones that still use the old EAPI but also which contain other bugs, since they don't get touched at all (since touching them triggers the new policy). For a real-world analogy - look at the result of well-intended laws that require ADA compliance and such on building modifications. The result is often stuff like kids taking classes in modular trailers and such because in order to add an extension to the building you need to bring the entire building up to code (and not just the new part). The result isn't more elevators and ramps - but the use of hacked together solutions to work around the policy. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now, if a maintainer actually needs a feature of a new EAPI, or an ebuild contains a bug that can only be addressed by bumping it, then by all means the maintainer should be revising the ebuild. Then there is actually an upside to balance the cost. Rich
