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 B26DF138010 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:39:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FA7D21C006; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011C4E0230 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:38:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8739B33D703 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:38:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.683 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.683 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.310, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.371, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6OwEoseZ7FUr for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:38:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA4C333CB84 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:38:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TOMLC-00051C-Kr for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 07:38:50 +0200 Received: from 71-17-69-121.yktn.hsdb.sasknet.sk.ca ([71.17.69.121]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 07:38:50 +0200 Received: from dirtyepic by 71-17-69-121.yktn.hsdb.sasknet.sk.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 07:38:50 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Ryan Hill Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:42:30 -0600 Message-ID: <20121016234230.3b79a2fe@gentoo.org> References: <20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan> <20121012211023.592e82a1@gentoo.org> <20121013082820.75d280a1@sera-17.lan> 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_/3NaQVympUOZEYymkOG=_2pB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 71-17-69-121.yktn.hsdb.sasknet.sk.ca X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.13; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-Archives-Salt: a623c1ed-a580-4b18-b829-a2d0bcf24f0e X-Archives-Hash: 657dc1abb63b6fbf2fbbefb55910699d --Sig_/3NaQVympUOZEYymkOG=_2pB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:28:20 +0200 Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:10:23 -0600 > Ryan Hill wrote: >=20 > > I'd argue against deprecating EAPI 0 any time soon though. Killing > > EAPI 1 would be a better idea. >=20 > I'm not for forced EAPI bumps anytime soon, but I expect EAPI 0 to be > gone from tree in 3-5 years once the EAPI=3D0 requirement is lifted. How many packages in the tree don't define EAPI at all? It's been a while since I looked, but I remember it was a pretty big number. Maybe things ha= ve changed. > Currently we have only 6 official EAPIs which is still manageable to > remember the details of each. Though it might be confusing for new > developers. Once we are at 20 EAPIs it will be an issue also for > seasoned folks. Agreed. We will definitely have to do some pruning at some point. > Therefore deprecation is a given, how to go about it is certainly up to > discussion. What do you see as an acceptable path here? I think an EAPI becomes a candidate for removal when the number of packages using it becomes small enough that a sufficiently motivated/bored/gullible person could take on the task of porting them all to a newer EAPI. EAPI 0 is our baseline (all EAPIs are defined as "EAPI 0 plus/minus foo") and thus should never* be removed. Anything else is fair game. *for varying lengths of never. If it becomes completely irrelevant then yeah just boot it. --=20 gcc-porting toolchain, wxwidgets we were never more here, expanse getting broa= der @ gentoo.org but bigger boats been done by less wa= ter --Sig_/3NaQVympUOZEYymkOG=_2pB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlB+RUsACgkQiqiDRvmkBmJNvACgwd/9NMjnk5XVDxEe/sxpPbmk 5wgAn20OeSuOoTKeaPhTu1plghsC9y4J =Mfas -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/3NaQVympUOZEYymkOG=_2pB--