From: Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages.
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:02:08 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1350075728.16906.23.camel@rook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121012203806.GA19820@waltdnes.org>
On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 16:38 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> It's my understanding that higher EAPI levels include more features.
> How backwards compatable are the EAPI levels? I.e. assume that we take
> an ebuild with EAPI 0, and slap in EAPI=1 (or 2 or 3, etc) at the top,
> without any other changes. Are there any circumstances where the ebuild
> would behave differently and/or break?
See http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/eapi/index.html
Updating an ebuild from EAPI0 to EAPI1 without changes should be safe.
Updating from EAPI0 to EAPI2 or higher without changes is not safe; at
the minimum, econf calls would need to be moved from src_compile to
src_configure.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-12 21:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-12 10:53 [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages Ralph Sennhauser
2012-10-12 20:38 ` Walter Dnes
2012-10-12 20:41 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-10-12 20:45 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2012-10-12 21:02 ` Alexandre Rostovtsev [this message]
2012-10-13 3:10 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
2012-10-13 6:28 ` Ralph Sennhauser
2012-10-17 5:42 ` Ryan Hill
2012-10-17 17:34 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-17 19:00 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-18 4:07 ` Ryan Hill
2012-10-18 13:36 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-18 15:49 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-18 17:49 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-18 19:05 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-18 19:35 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-19 17:21 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-19 17:51 ` Alexis Ballier
2012-10-19 18:09 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-19 18:47 ` Alexis Ballier
2012-10-19 19:32 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-19 19:43 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-19 19:53 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-19 20:39 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-19 20:47 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-20 6:04 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 14:09 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-20 14:29 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 14:53 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 15:15 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-20 15:19 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 15:17 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 15:57 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-20 15:24 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-19 20:43 ` Alexis Ballier
2012-10-20 6:07 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 6:14 ` Michał Górny
2012-10-20 6:31 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 14:37 ` Peter Stuge
2012-10-19 4:09 ` Ryan Hill
2012-10-19 4:34 ` Zac Medico
2013-04-12 16:25 ` [gentoo-dev] Binary package dependencies for sub-slot-less EAPIs W. Trevor King
2013-04-12 18:38 ` Rich Freeman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1350075728.16906.23.camel@rook \
--to=tetromino@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox