From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LRbiA-0006f5-FB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:21:50 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E15BE038C; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:21:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rv-out-0708.google.com [209.85.198.244]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2E60E038C for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:21:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so6639197rvf.46 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:21:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=2eWH45NbMn+IR8VuiP8gZeQ0IxRzERBEth8Iy7xKvb0=; b=bluJdU3Lti78ZdTkCPZFK+lTTstWFpbTbHTU5lOq5EDXZQMv2177qp/HxxPvDM4/eR R1GepiCoxX/G9lpY6xVbbASGP7B7hDS6rvGdj3sVLWXvrqB7Brp8l99jp52HUy3FWLii +QvuH/+xukQWPPfPC4sqUa1ogO/tNYiKgKAuA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=DWCPISWYw85HNUz7cgVEfKDrGUPJmodxscloX0M7eLvK42H3vB+G4Ar+Y3lQ5UK1KC brnP2vegqUv0Wexw6LPxT7+hG8M7ZDmYa+TxAd27KAjbQGlS3cXo8mLUkm8XK/vxdQGK ahRroA2eEaYJKnLwJsMEhVvJBnkkQzZS9pudI= Received: by 10.143.156.12 with SMTP id i12mr2148014wfo.320.1233015707496; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:21:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.gmail.com (nat08.sjc1.metaweb.com [208.68.111.103]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm17391513wfg.10.2009.01.26.16.21.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:21:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp.gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:21:17 -0800 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:21:17 -0800 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles Message-ID: <20090127002117.GA3823@hrair.corp.631h.metaweb.com> References: <497B8758.9030309@gentoo.org> <20090125210437.1e8b3fed@snowmobile> <20090126172800.GC2928@comet> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090126172800.GC2928@comet> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Archives-Salt: fd695a38-e7da-4411-b59f-58facb03ee04 X-Archives-Hash: 5f09160eab8e73d2a8d6055caf2d8f29 --9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:28:00AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > "Decision: Approved. Existing stable profiles must use EAPI=3D0. New or d= ev=20 > profiles can use higher EAPIs. >=20 > "Ref: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_930f58fcebcbbcbe523c001f2= c825179.xml" I'm not saying it's exactly fun for profile developers, but if y'all=20 are after avoiding users syncing and suddenly having their profile=20 unusable the rule really should be "once a profile node is stabilized,=20 its EAPI is locked" rather then "existing stable profiles must use=20 EAPI=3D0". The current decree protects older portage users, the former=20 decree blocks the scenario from ever reoccuring. Potentially overkill- thoughts? ~brian --9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkl+U30ACgkQsiLx3HvNzge3DwCaAzHdRPWiUvDUwy4P/FAP2hnF cgwAn0DO1FSuRuqpiSGTNTQVaZcFh5b0 =dzDt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR--