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 1CC72138010 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:26:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 19D5BE0663; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:26:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo-p05-ob.rzone.de (mo-p05-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.182]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3121E050E for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:25:26 +0000 (UTC) X-RZG-AUTH: :I3kQYkG6f/ML/Lb0bAYFCBt+SpICkd7E+UrA1ycmip9RDA+sU5XwLTHsZw3L3oZv27ohPQ== X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo05 Received: from porto.localnet ([78.129.141.78]) by smtp.strato.de (jored mo43) (RZmta 30.12 AUTH) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPA id Q00be3o7UCJHaN for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:25:25 +0200 (CEST) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:27:02 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.4.4-gentoo; KDE/4.9.0; x86_64; ; ) References: <1650487.RNHkTcOSMI@elia> <503F477B.2050507@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <503F477B.2050507@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Linux 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; boundary="nextPart2690553.mDFBaA7glO"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201208301527.07308.dilfridge@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 309b7eb7-9cb9-41f8-8360-c3d370247a2e X-Archives-Hash: 76ae33f5972fa39eeb521c2d0b7aa0c8 --nextPart2690553.mDFBaA7glO Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:59:07 schrieb hasufell: > Could you elaborate what the reasons FOR it are (not that I don't know > any, but you brought it up) since this will add work for every developer > to check a) how the behavior of the new EAPI impacts the current ebuild > and b) how the behvaior of inherited eclasses change depending on EAPI. a) Easier eclass maintenance.=20 Restricting the kde4 eclasses to EAPI 3 and 4 made the code indeed simpler.= =20 We'll raise that to 4 only soon (after fixing the remaining ebuilds in the= =20 tree.) b) Easier overall tree maintenance. I've recently removed a useflag on poppler (xpdf-headers for those=20 interested). Of course, this involved fixing all in-tree reverse dependenci= es=20 first. Now I consider myself very lucky there, because all except two packa= ges=20 were EAPI 4 and I could use (+). One package was EAPI 3 and I unceremonious= ly=20 bumped it to 4. One was EAPI 0. Having fun with || there.=20 I dont consider this list complete, feel free to add. =2D-=20 Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer=20 kde (team lead), sci, tex, arm, printing dilfridge@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ --nextPart2690553.mDFBaA7glO 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) iQIcBAABCgAGBQJQP2orAAoJEEb+UGWnxTyHMX0P/jfb5V1NOEm4H/H7QY6TPVoq EbNqy0wGU9crEebjhpe4/8rae6Um4octw9lO4292ze6TUfoArlNKe/oaHEagbagY p5P5Y7mZybHorDWfz2HFDF+UFsiWX78w7BqR0kWAPGBIHdneUM1AKhseb1Lb7AO1 a3lEZWwlf0qSrxutV8kS1za1lVhUMR6n4Po8uCrcmwdOTMBhBV1T/93YnhPFPQEM n4ugZKaFXzb0fZJiR8J8+vLlXW1hepTIMOcaYPOl579npxyRbP7/B+bqynnFAKln uKx/LcOYZ3x5b4WsfWo90iAHzI+JxuUcthvYfCyBts7JhiFCBuvin5w+iz08VF2y 5IE8abHB2DyTNexOrEgvlsOEH2GoOtsOc21Q0Q2AvHdCGhmONlR3mknWNHnnjMs9 G36o6SjI/koh2f/RICQ014J4LUcQcokFFITP5J9vw1qYbd2oSRTkAFFCCg2Ju8w3 ioFyZc68+BtukPA2XKQZO42KbW2uCGOVcQmxHGWVwHpRyXVpWOZ0BYULkf/NSZZN 4n6/MZrwZx0sfSTrf7OylPmLL0naDVWFpZ74K5bSoSHQQ0AsJvQhS9zIHBiHiOAK qenslrw6htQ0tqnwl//znvFjuhvnMD/1M5NLCOdmV2EBxJuze7g7xVEOHmA3nNPT 8Ks5u8iP6SHTjGYb29Im =TJ+e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2690553.mDFBaA7glO--