From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M50IA-0003wY-TL for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 16:29:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E3665E05A9; Fri, 15 May 2009 16:29:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f219.google.com (mail-fx0-f219.google.com [209.85.220.219]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A497BE05A9 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 16:29:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so1949705fxm.34 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=HlLVDTgmoOwV7SjcOhKtYyikYY2CCLNa5/caXrRYhAI=; b=L31NWtVVWvMCf7Nh8k5Kr1jCxoyHeXXMiFNG9HJvAvyWESoXUGK2DV6Hcy9s5+SrWY qtcVTUAsls24bZ+ECIOqLcPRfeBBcvWc/MeYZee+X0N6rQNQoBHi88UroWs6mi2Udmpz 9WH6OuAjkQJkebHP3nEr/YyeS5JMDKAMJxor8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=qg1z1vqbuJF+AEYbztLvRRvQH4rNyY1OydNs2QIBHj6B5w5I4w2o0fWNmOJ9WAUnUl +wgtfC+VuqC7R1yjkyYEEcGkCKPSdCQpn6UKDwdyXfrJBrg2TjyjGNDy5hhGq5dAc8H5 YMUJE91bZgEPEcuxBro63BT2KikcB5bftZ7Qk= Received: by 10.103.169.18 with SMTP id w18mr2397441muo.101.1242404988836; Fri, 15 May 2009 09:29:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowmobile (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j2sm12611mue.12.2009.05.15.09.29.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 15 May 2009 09:29:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:29:42 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55 Message-ID: <20090515172942.13c1ca62@snowmobile> In-Reply-To: <3957741d4885eeb5a84ffcf262e58344@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <200905142006.51998.patrick@gentoo.org> <20090514193907.56754ae6@snowcone> <4A0D479F.7040107@gentoo.org> <3957741d4885eeb5a84ffcf262e58344@smtp.hushmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.1; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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; boundary="Sig_/3l_Z6HaZUxqg5YxHN0LnSVt"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 8fd61257-88ae-4a0c-b5f3-c7b75dbbd619 X-Archives-Hash: 8d34eedb726e41332fc144776e5e98c2 --Sig_/3l_Z6HaZUxqg5YxHN0LnSVt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:16:11 -0500 "Robert R. Russell" wrote: > If I understand the problem GLEP 55 is trying to solve correctly, it > stems from portage's assumption that an unknown EAPI is equal to EAPI > 0. Could that assumption be changed to an unknown EAPI is equal to > the latest supported EAPI. Now I understand that this change would > have to wait until all the ebuilds in the portage tree correctly > define their EAPI, but would the idea be technically feasible at > least excluding EAPI0 ebuilds? I think it would be if all EAPIs are > forward compatible up until the EAPI declaration in the ebuild. No, that still wouldn't help, because the package manager doesn't know that what it thinks is the 'latest' EAPI (not that there really is such a thing -- EAPIs aren't a linear sequence) actually is the 'latest' EAPI. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/3l_Z6HaZUxqg5YxHN0LnSVt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoNmHkACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEhmwCeIFoGKxHl94P39AOUWfpv66Yh nx0An3FS37H5dbu3UQZZkg1Hi3WiUJcR =jvn7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/3l_Z6HaZUxqg5YxHN0LnSVt--