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 1S6tT0-0006HH-Ni for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:50:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AD82AE0AB6; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:50:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pz0-f53.google.com (mail-pz0-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0E5E0A59 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:49:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dady25 with SMTP id y25so5041210dad.40 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:49:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=QX6EGIHqR5iOpiFzU9SLmvE9F/Y5G+w4FJtSBKcIHGI=; b=dR9Bqh8poKKjpBfKHtpoXtr0MUgAtLc9pXr8ISMzh6k9cKVIEuqDM9dY9MPRNvkCuq qncqNJ/1wjAE0cqfTHv1dgbK3EVpj+z28ApXYC/ewtRK4ilSjjI4FfNcV/7VsR2iIWHT 8O6+oAav7LdqPE6zGZfxLYhztEPfxqX52HwXd/xDber8ST8vR7nLC6C4hOIpuUta9kWu 0nrAoF0/a5puSstIP63NgpBeS0+2ZMFV58RsfUA3QivVufCxTtbuodUvK9SH7Axk9VIC ONHfHzs5yu1O8WL9qWGhztRnU9ricv3FCckJhcd1XEjul0Xo4RH/Zr556D4Du4xLor49 W9kQ== Received: by 10.68.197.134 with SMTP id iu6mr9118690pbc.123.1331513378490; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:49:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 (74-95-192-101-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.95.192.101]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s10sm9134956pbq.13.2012.03.11.17.49.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:49:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:49:35 -0700 Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:49:35 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Deprecate EAPI1? Message-ID: <20120312004935.GB7579@localhost> References: <1331467306.11661.2.camel@belkin4> <4F5CA874.6070209@gentoo.org> <20120311135503.707de3b6@googlemail.com> <4F5CC159.1020602@gentoo.org> 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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F5CC159.1020602@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 21a0dd53-a2ab-4dd7-8a97-a0d586d8755c X-Archives-Hash: 69fc111fcaa196200b97b2c275a29bb1 On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 04:14:33PM +0100, Ch??-Thanh Christopher Nguy???n 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. > > > > Would it be feasible to do a pkg_pretend() check and refuse > install/upgrade if packages with unsupported EAPI are detected? The question should be "is it worth doing it", rather than "can we hack out something". As Ciaran said, PM's are going to be supporting EAPI1 indefinitely- it's zero cost to do so at this point. Thus doing what you're proposing doesn't gain us anything but complexity. If people want to enforce the eapi1 is no longer used in the gentoo repo, that's fine- we stick a list of acceptable EAPI's into its layout.conf. If you want to block EAPI1 from being further used, go that route; at least for pkgcore (and presumably paludis, likely portage), ripping out EAPI1 is unlikely to occur anything this side of 2015. ~brian