On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Johannes Huber <email@example.com> 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.