From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-55360-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34491138010
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:02:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F1ACE0175;
	Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:02:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7FFE04BA
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:02:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.43] (pool-71-246-221-8.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.246.221.8])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: tetromino)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2256633DA0C
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:02:11 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1350075728.16906.23.camel@rook>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages.
From: Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:02:08 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20121012203806.GA19820@waltdnes.org>
References: <20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan>
	 <20121012203806.GA19820@waltdnes.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.0 
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: a7d763a3-65ba-45fa-8d86-1ce1f3068714
X-Archives-Hash: da88cdfeaab2b0f1c2725146437d58f5

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.