On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:00:12 -0400 Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Would be easier to prune old versions if we "force" them to be less > > using at least preventing new ebuilds to use them. For example, what is > > the advantage for a new ebuild to still rely on old src_compile phase > > instead of src_prepare/configure...? > > It can be bumped by copying it from the ebuild for the previous > version, thus introducing no errors. Yeah, someone could be making a small change (eg. adding a patch that requires a revbump) to a package they don't maintain and aren't familiar with. Forcing them to port/rewrite the ebuild isn't going to make anyone happy. > I think the whole developers-can't-handle-47-EAPIs thing is a red > herring. The fact that there are packages written in Erlang in the > tree doesn't cause me any issues even though I haven't had to do any > work in Erlang. If I ever wanted to maintain such a package then I'd > take the time to learn it as needed. Likewise, if I wanted to > maintain a package that used EAPI joe and I really prefer to work in > EAPI fred, then I'd revise it at my next convenience. Well, it's not just about ebuilds you maintain. Think about something like the gcc-porting trackers where you have to touch a lot of ebuilds across the tree. You really do have to have a working knowledge of the differences between EAPIs to do so. My browser bookmark to the EAPI cheatsheet is one of the more frequently used as it is. -- gcc-porting toolchain, wxwidgets we were never more here, expanse getting broader @ gentoo.org but bigger boats been done by less water
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
