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 8B0B7138010 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:08:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4502E21C05D; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:08:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BDC21C064 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:07:44 +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 4606E33D7D8 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:07:43 +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: <20121019174338.25dbab2b@gentoo.org> References: <20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan> <20121012211023.592e82a1@gentoo.org> <20121013082820.75d280a1@sera-17.lan> <20121016234230.3b79a2fe@gentoo.org> <1350495278.2447.33.camel@belkin4> <20121017220707.02c6f5ac@gentoo.org> <1350575341.2447.40.camel@belkin4> <1350587136.2447.47.camel@belkin4> <1350667312.12879.11.camel@belkin4> <20121019145105.4927316b@gentoo.org> <1350670155.12879.22.camel@belkin4> <20121019154733.31b2284c@gentoo.org> <1350675125.12879.44.camel@belkin4> <5081AD7B.1040100@gentoo.org> <1350676398.12879.50.camel@belkin4> <20121019174338.25dbab2b@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-oHm8d2dLSrZYtbOhDUwH" Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:07:39 +0200 Message-ID: <1350713259.12879.56.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: 11d27c61-cf15-4f8d-985c-7883068e2e53 X-Archives-Hash: 1577a984e6ee715c4d3ab3433900cb24 --=-oHm8d2dLSrZYtbOhDUwH Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 17:43 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribi=C3=B3: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:53:18 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > What is the advantage of using eapi2 over eapi4 for example? What > > "hard to learn" change was included in eapi4 over eapi2? >=20 > Were you around when eapi2 got out and we had a bunch of packages > running econf twice because we wanted to quickly get rid of > built_with_use? >=20 > A 5 mins fix is a 5 mins fix, if you include an eapi bump in those 5 > mins then i expect crap to be committed to the tree or nothing at all. >=20 >=20 Of course the idea wouldn't be to deprecate older eapis as soon as newer one is released but, for example, do you really think forcing people to use eapi4 now would cause so many problems? We could even create a team (I would join to that one of course) to help in migration process. --=-oHm8d2dLSrZYtbOhDUwH 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) iEYEABECAAYFAlCCP6sACgkQCaWpQKGI+9QxIACeN+aQo2SZ1LGUlMXpvD6NbSPa +sMAn3JYLH2JLvFCMIBMdERmbSyOkIvV =Sqve -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-oHm8d2dLSrZYtbOhDUwH--