On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Thomas Sachau <to...@gentoo.org> wrote: > This is not about "having problems with handling eapi-X", this is just > about limited time and the choice where to spend that time. If you do > just a version bump, you often dont have to touch the ebuild at all, > just copy, test, commit and be happy. If you additionally require an > EAPI bump, this means to carefully check the ebuild, adjust it to the > new EAPI and additionally check, that the expected haviour is also the > one that happens. While doing this, i could also have fixed another bug > or have done another version bump.
Or, more likely, you probably would just ignore the bug that requires an EAPI bump and leave the existing buggy version in the tree. Then you'd go work on something where your time could be more effectively spent. I've seen this at work all the time - "raising the bar" on quality (as measured by the pound of paperwork) often results in a lower quality system, because fixing bugs is much more expensive so bugs simply don't get fixed. Somebody raised the issue of slot dependencies earlier. I'm completely for a policy that states that the entire tree should be updated to take advantage of these where applicable. I wouldn't state it in terms of EAPI - I'd state it in terms of outcome. Make it a general call for action, and then after so much time have bugs filed when packages do not comply. I'd love to see Gentoo reach a point soon where users don't have to run revdep-rebuild. Focusing on outcomes is what I'm all about - forget about EAPIs - focus on what it is that we really want, and make those things that really matter. Rich
