Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 16:09 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
>> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
>>> El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 22:39 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
>>>> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
>>>>> El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 21:43 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
>>>>>> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
>>>>>>> I volunteer to do whatever conversions you want for every ebuild I find
>>>>>>> if I have time... what prevents me from doing it is to commit that
>>>>>>> changes to ebuilds not maintained by me and not knowing if developers
>>>>>>> agree on using latest eapi if possible. A more general solution (or
>>>>>>> policy) needs to be worked as, otherwise, tree won't be moved to latest
>>>>>>> eapi ever because we would need to:
>>>>>>> - Periodically send bugs + patches
>>>>>>> - Ask for permission to commit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that for every eapi bump
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either an ebuild has a responsive maintainer, which you can ask friendly
>>>>>> to bump the EAPI because of feature X you would like to use or there is
>>>>>> no maintainer, in which case you are free to touch/bump or last rite the
>>>>>> ebuild.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So i still dont see any need or requirement for a policy to
>>>>>> force/require all devs to always use or switch to the latest avaidable
>>>>>> EAPI. As already written in this thread, it would just mean less new
>>>>>> ebuilds and less version bumps with such a policy. And i also prefer
>>>>>> more work done with older EAPI versions around then less ebuilds/new
>>>>>> versions with latest EAPI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, what people is still having problems with handling eapi4? If
>>>>> there are doubts about its usage, they should be asked and resolved
>>>>> instead of ignored keeping ebuilds with older eapis. The only eapi that
>>>>> probably adds no advantage for a lot of ebuilds is eapi3, but that is
>>>>> not the case for eapi4 for example, that includes changes that should be
>>>>> incorporated by most packages in the tree, some of them introduced by it
>>>>> and others inherited from older eapis.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the advantage of using eapi2 over eapi4 for example? What "hard
>>>>> to learn" change was included in eapi4 over eapi2?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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. And that was already expressed in my
>>>> first response. I nowhere claimed to have problems with EAPI bumps, just
>>>> that they require additional time, so reducing the amount of time left
>>>> to create new ebuilds/fix bugs/do version bumps. And with the choice, i
>>>> prefer the new ebuilds/fixed bugs/version bumps over an ebuild switched
>>>> to a new EAPI.
>>>>
>>>> So my question to you: What is the advantage of using ${NEW_EAPI} over
>>>> using ${OLDER_EAPI}, when the ebuild does the same and the result is the
>>>> same?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I already explained the advantages, simply take a look to:
>>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/eapi/index.html
>>>
>>> to see that, for example, --disable-dependency-tracking won't be used by
>>> default for older eapis. The same will occur with eapi5 and
>>> --disable-silent-rules or running tests in parallel.
>>>
>>> That time you think you are saving, will be need to be lost if, for
>>> example, some QA policy appears in the future to move to try to run
>>> tests in parallel when possible, or force verbose output.
>>>
>>
>> Please remember, that not every package out there does use an autotools
>> based build system, we also have custom configure scripts, custom
>> makefiles, things like cmake, qmake or even completly different things
>> like ant based build systems for java. All those build systems wont
>> benefit neither from --disable-dependency-tracking nor from
>> --disable-silent-rules.
>>
>> Also, as already pointed out, a package, which currently exists may be
>> unmaintained and useless in the future, so if i dont do the work now and
>> remove the then unneeded package later, i did not spend any additional
>> time for this change. Your requirement would either mean wasted time or
>> another open bug until the package gets removed.
>
> If the package is unmaintained it won't probably have a revision bump
> and, then, eapi won't change, if any other needs to fix another bug and
> also bumps eapi, that package will be enhanced, that is what really
> matters. If it's broke because dev bumping it failed to bump the eapi,
> lets fix it (or ask for help) to prevent him from doing that error
> again. All are gains: package is improved and developer learns how to
> handle new eapiHope you dont mix threads, since i dont see any relation between a package being unmaintained, a revision bump and a changing EAPI. Beside that: A package not using the latest EAPI is not broken, please stop doing such claims. Additionally fixing an issue without also bumping the package to the latest EAPI is not an issue or error by itself either. > >> >> Beside that, i did ask you about the case, where "the ebuild does the >> same and the result is the same". And you did not answer my question, >> why an EAPI-bump in such cases should be done. > > What about the huge number of packages that would benefit from the bump? > Why ignore them because a few packages won't benefit. Think in changes > like src_configure phase addition, that most packages with benefit from > it. Also, this is not about blindly forcing people to use latest eapi > without even evaluating what improvements they have, this is about, for > example, forcing packages to use eapi4 because it includes a ton of > enhancements from eapi0 that most packages would benefit from. > >> >> 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. >> >> > > I have already pointed multiple examples where bumping eapi will help to > improve things, not doing so because of that hypothetical problems you > think could occur only leads us to current situation: a ton of autotools > packages won't get --disable-silent-rules/--disable-dependency-tracking > improvements because people doesn't even try to bump eapi, some more > packages will hide utilities failing but not dying because of using old > eapis, inconsistent blockers handling around the tree due using > different eapis, packages still relying on dying in pkg_setup instead of > setting proper USE deps, packages still using dohard and dosed, html > files in /usr/share/doc being compressed because of old eapi usage, I > even noticed past week a package still using ebeep. I am not talking about hypothetical problems, i am talking about a real thing: my limited amount of free time i am able and willing to spend for Gentoo. And i prefer spending it on fixing real bugs over spending additional time to bump the EAPI just for fun. For the points you see issues with: - dont miss, that one can also add those configure options in an ebuild without the requirement to use the EAPI. -Utilities failing but not dying? Only certain helper functions will die with EAPI-4, nothing else. And if in doubt, just add a " || die" after every call and be done with it. So also not related to the EAPI. -blocker handling is done by the PM, not the ebuild, so if you have a patch for a better UI output, PM maintainers will probably happily apply it, when you provide it. -for a die in pkg_setup instead of a USE dependency: Both ways will prevent you from continuing, the second one only has a unified UI. -I dont see any real problem with dosed and dohard, they are just wrappers around sed and ln, so what would improve if someone replaces the wrappers with calls to the wrapped tools? We could continue forever with this examples, so i will shorten my point of view: If i want/need an option, i will add it to the ebuild. If an option i want requires a newer EAPI, i will use the newer EAPI. If the current EAPI does offer all i need, i wont spend any additional time on the EAPI bump. If you want to do it differently for the packages you maintain, fine. Just dont try to force your preferred EAPI-handling on everyone else. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
