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 1S6l3L-0007Qd-Uo for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:51:24 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D773E088B; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:51:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com (mail-we0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D603AE07D9 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:50:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by werm13 with SMTP id m13so2885543wer.40 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:50:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; bh=tmKmJsMAkWnKNezMf0UhCFjsOZ7gr8gJrJs9OEIer4g=; b=dlkS3Mf9VafbcoDwJl+5h4b8X16Z7ta/yL1v2/yp5MxmspTR85d7wsRNCqDkcadWN7 Tjy+Y8VkVq6FogQRI/23ABv7a3IdIcTevB0Ycwl+Jr3AdxWFaEoG83gZOHXrqAlJrhR8 VVOyZv7DwGK/QZOBBnQjisp71v1O5MLAWX16hIflQLGm91dK0/L8Ubf3H9zUeBwSDsMX QJicXXvDUArL/TKpgWQe4KSDWbCvBiov6eLZ/fIjLu1VahCijFkFga1mEmlBOT5B1TuE Nc40LB2/oHWHmKvQNmDrPKuDHS2x+h6S4wpKB9pzI9/68JWYeB52rmKHuFxBoC+SES27 EspA== Received: by 10.180.95.197 with SMTP id dm5mr20139760wib.20.1331481045089; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpc13-broo7-2-0-cust130.14-2.cable.virginmedia.com. [82.9.16.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gg2sm34727871wib.7.2012.03.11.08.50.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:49:35 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Deprecate EAPI1? Message-ID: <20120311154935.1182cf69@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F5CC159.1020602@gentoo.org> References: <1331467306.11661.2.camel@belkin4> <4F5CA874.6070209@gentoo.org> <20120311135503.707de3b6@googlemail.com> <4F5CC159.1020602@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-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_/BGpcnVudvNlE4gc15h_pa+u"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 93bb35cf-cc19-40e7-9eac-6318a04511f4 X-Archives-Hash: e427c4d2346fb7269f6897625dd255c6 --Sig_/BGpcnVudvNlE4gc15h_pa+u Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:14:33 +0100 Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: > >> Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who > >> runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I > >> think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs > >> for quite a while longer. > > We have to support them indefinitely. It's not possible to > > uninstall a package whose EAPI is unknown. > > >=20 > Would it be feasible to do a pkg_pretend() check and refuse > install/upgrade if packages with unsupported EAPI are detected? Uhm. I think your question doesn't make any sense, but maybe I'm just not understanding it. Rephrase please. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/BGpcnVudvNlE4gc15h_pa+u Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9cyZIACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHGhQCgmgCjk8VngNXmG00Hvkvj3fBJ 3z4AniMzNLx5kjLDSmiJ+S4EapDIx/xk =fFbw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/BGpcnVudvNlE4gc15h_pa+u--