On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > The primary benefit to the policy that dev's should bump EAPI when > bumping ebuilds is so that older inferior EAPIs can be deprecated and > eventually removed from the tree.
What is the benefit from removing the old EAPIs? > > Take, for example, the sub-slot and slot-operator support that will > hopefully be applied as part of EAPI=5 -- when this is integrated > across the tree, there will be little to no purpose for revdep-rebuild > and/or @preserved-libs. But this tree-wide integration would never > happen if said policy didn't exist, ie, I think this is a good example > of "interests of others". Then ask nicely for everybody to implement these features, and make it a policy if necessary. Simply bumping an ebuild to EAPI=5 doesn't even guarantee that either of those features would be used anyway. If there is a benefit from some specific practice, then let's adopt it. However, I don't think that is the same as just bumping EAPIs for their own sake. When there is a benefit to adopting a new EAPI of course maintainers should try to take advantage of it. If there are specific changes we want to try to make tree-wide let's try to do that too. But, why bump ebuilds from 0 to 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 when your only example of an end-user benefit would have been achieved if we just bumped from 0 to 5 in one step? Rich
