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 E2FDC138010 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:32:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 312B621C047; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C006321C015 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:31:29 +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 9B76233D7F7 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:31:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev In-Reply-To: <20121020081430.5e1c6e9b@pomiocik.lan> 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> <1350713259.12879.56.camel@belkin4> <20121020081430.5e1c6e9b@pomiocik.lan> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-tO/G1I26hVaBVgUSn/HT" Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:31:25 +0200 Message-ID: <1350714685.12879.58.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: ede57286-5f55-4c9d-8bf8-1e5fe9a1822f X-Archives-Hash: 8037f0be12a99041dad1a906a90e1a3a --=-tO/G1I26hVaBVgUSn/HT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El s=C3=A1b, 20-10-2012 a las 08:14 +0200, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny escribi= =C3=B3: > On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:07:39 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: >=20 > > 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 resol= ved > > > > 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 > > Of course the idea wouldn't be to deprecate older eapis as soon as newe= r > > 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. >=20 > Well, creating a team dedicated to the cause is a good idea anyway. > Without a policy or anything like that, the team could at least work on > improving compatibility of eclasses with new EAPIs. >=20 Yes, fine --=-tO/G1I26hVaBVgUSn/HT 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) iEUEABECAAYFAlCCRT0ACgkQCaWpQKGI+9R7eACXQBy3w0WWc7FsslQBA1psGzs1 uQCffVNhN7jmYK4zYsMuGpRauzsiptE= =/xQL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-tO/G1I26hVaBVgUSn/HT--