From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages.
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:10:23 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121012211023.592e82a1@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1095 bytes --]
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:53:15 +0200
Ralph Sennhauser <sera@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The EAPI=0 requirement comes from having to provide an update path for
> systems with a package manager without EAPI support. By now we are
> talking about really ancient systems and it's questionable if there is
> any merit in supporting such.
>
> Further the situation is that some of the maintainers of must be EAPI 0
> ebuilds already moved on as the majority of users will profit from a
> bump. As a result the clean upgrade path is already borked and the
> value of keeping others at EAPI=0 deteriorates further and further.
Yeah as soon as python went it was pretty much pointless. I don't see any
value in forcing system packages to EAPI 0 anymore. Everything you're saying
makes sense to me at least.
I'd argue against deprecating EAPI 0 any time soon though. Killing EAPI 1
would be a better idea.
--
gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets we were never more here, expanse getting broader
@ gentoo.org but bigger boats been done by less water
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-13 3:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-12 10:53 [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages Ralph Sennhauser
2012-10-12 20:38 ` Walter Dnes
2012-10-12 20:41 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-10-12 20:45 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2012-10-12 21:02 ` Alexandre Rostovtsev
2012-10-13 3:10 ` Ryan Hill [this message]
2012-10-13 6:28 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ralph Sennhauser
2012-10-17 5:42 ` Ryan Hill
2012-10-17 17:34 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-17 19:00 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-18 4:07 ` Ryan Hill
2012-10-18 13:36 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-18 15:49 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-18 17:49 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-18 19:05 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-18 19:35 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-19 17:21 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-19 17:51 ` Alexis Ballier
2012-10-19 18:09 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-19 18:47 ` Alexis Ballier
2012-10-19 19:32 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-19 19:43 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-19 19:53 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-19 20:39 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-19 20:47 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-20 6:04 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 14:09 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-20 14:29 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 14:53 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 15:15 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-20 15:19 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 15:17 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 15:57 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-20 15:24 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-19 20:43 ` Alexis Ballier
2012-10-20 6:07 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 6:14 ` Michał Górny
2012-10-20 6:31 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 14:37 ` Peter Stuge
2012-10-19 4:09 ` Ryan Hill
2012-10-19 4:34 ` Zac Medico
2013-04-12 16:25 ` [gentoo-dev] Binary package dependencies for sub-slot-less EAPIs W. Trevor King
2013-04-12 18:38 ` Rich Freeman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121012211023.592e82a1@gentoo.org \
--to=dirtyepic@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox