From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DE2138010 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:35:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D40621C004; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:35:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F74AE02DF for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:34:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (230.Red-2-137-43.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.43.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 574B333D7D5 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:34:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20121016234230.3b79a2fe@gentoo.org> References: <20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan> <20121012211023.592e82a1@gentoo.org> <20121013082820.75d280a1@sera-17.lan> <20121016234230.3b79a2fe@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-yO1T4BPfI2fn88GIApNW" Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:34:38 +0200 Message-ID: <1350495278.2447.33.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: 1fafa00a-5fa0-4abf-aed1-0c6478cffb01 X-Archives-Hash: 81dd32bbf29d371d14d8ef2c758db0a4 --=-yO1T4BPfI2fn88GIApNW Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El mar, 16-10-2012 a las 23:42 -0600, Ryan Hill escribi=C3=B3: > On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:28:20 +0200 > Ralph Sennhauser wrote: >=20 > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:10:23 -0600 > > Ryan Hill wrote: > >=20 > > > I'd argue against deprecating EAPI 0 any time soon though. Killing > > > EAPI 1 would be a better idea. > >=20 > > I'm not for forced EAPI bumps anytime soon, but I expect EAPI 0 to be > > gone from tree in 3-5 years once the EAPI=3D0 requirement is lifted. >=20 > How many packages in the tree don't define EAPI at all? It's been a whil= e > since I looked, but I remember it was a pretty big number. Maybe things = have > changed. >=20 > > Currently we have only 6 official EAPIs which is still manageable to > > remember the details of each. Though it might be confusing for new > > developers. Once we are at 20 EAPIs it will be an issue also for > > seasoned folks. >=20 > Agreed. We will definitely have to do some pruning at some point. Would be easier to prune old versions if we "force" them to be less using at least preventing new ebuilds to use them. For example, what is the advantage for a new ebuild to still rely on old src_compile phase instead of src_prepare/configure...? >=20 > > Therefore deprecation is a given, how to go about it is certainly up to > > discussion. What do you see as an acceptable path here? >=20 > I think an EAPI becomes a candidate for removal when the number of packag= es > using it becomes small enough that a sufficiently motivated/bored/gullibl= e > person could take on the task of porting them all to a newer EAPI. EAPI 0= is > our baseline (all EAPIs are defined as "EAPI 0 plus/minus foo") and thus > should never* be removed. Anything else is fair game. >=20 >=20 > *for varying lengths of never. If it becomes completely irrelevant then > yeah just boot it. >=20 --=-yO1T4BPfI2fn88GIApNW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAlB+7C4ACgkQCaWpQKGI+9QjDwCfSypSzY1PeoU7+4uuaWklV4hR SsYAn2KGbGaPZcPON3sZdLsxBRXfVDn8 =Yz0k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-yO1T4BPfI2fn88GIApNW--