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 C77C3138010 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:45:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A8E721C018; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:45:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1985C21C004 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:44:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id ds1so94266wgb.4 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:44:33 -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=OptYvP875iMuFq7OfSUfrZzDXEcDWL14kOyWtNG88c8=; b=lchrE3t4JAG/s/ui0q4qV8TbTXQDDtPZSgdOK5Gb57Rw8eYDwROAoX/sjJWa4xp7Pw MwYDMyvwSAdi5Z69GsaZWQMbJn4gi8V8KbcCud+HVVNWO2/vsn1L9xc9T+/IvHu9YXVl jE3pwR3yLuzg+9eNgZy+qgVHtZ9v2PsG9MF17Yy7BJC7iyS+OXcBsdu1JJwNRGw1u2PE 8ixIywcoF/hWlImGutD6nMRaPhq92mSGvpojsp3L+motlWybEZ3+fY0zQB2eulJaPeeZ mVMp58TNw9wRu27c9JTPEXgRnP0N3KVlvqqZmqQa3YXbMNiqH7Ay4w6GOHYKlZ0w2DAl U26Q== Received: by 10.216.142.102 with SMTP id h80mr2956033wej.179.1350074673273; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:44:33 -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 gg4sm5646454wib.6.2012.10.12.13.44.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:41:38 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. Message-ID: <20121012214138.7a04752f@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121012203806.GA19820@waltdnes.org> References: <20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan> <20121012203806.GA19820@waltdnes.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.13; 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_/iGIp8lSR7_jUSzcNzrKIR9s"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: c10d36bd-f723-4e75-a528-b6690b85573a X-Archives-Hash: b18feefd6eacad9f6d399e226dea0a2a --Sig_/iGIp8lSR7_jUSzcNzrKIR9s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:38:06 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:53:15PM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote > > From time to time the topic of deprecating EAPIs comes up and > > usually one suggestion is to keep 0 and start with converting EAPI > > 1 ebuilds. Then someone comes along and asks what is the point? > > Indeed, a fair question. >=20 > It's my understanding that higher EAPI levels include more features. > How backwards compatable are the EAPI levels? I.e. assume that we > take an ebuild with EAPI 0, and slap in EAPI=3D1 (or 2 or 3, etc) at > the top, without any other changes. Are there any circumstances > where the ebuild would behave differently and/or break? In EAPIs after 1, as well as adding shiny new toys, we've removed various deprecated things, split up phase functions, and made some helpers error on invalid input. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/iGIp8lSR7_jUSzcNzrKIR9s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlB4gIUACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEEXACgrD+B3BIkdcxYmOr70A3a//AB YacAniRGHBF6dEQXMEHPAOrrtX5uFSMe =Aqql -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/iGIp8lSR7_jUSzcNzrKIR9s--