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 4A485138010 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 47A6421C047; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:06:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE4E21C015 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:05:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD0433D9E4 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:05:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.66 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.287, 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 DqADydYd2EWH for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:05:34 +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 D3A6333D9CD for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:05:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TP3px-0006Mu-FS for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:05:29 +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 ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:05:29 +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 ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:05:29 +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: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:09:03 -0600 Message-ID: <20121018220903.344f8ab9@gentoo.org> References: <20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan> <20121012211023.592e82a1@gentoo.org> <20121013082820.75d280a1@sera-17.lan> <20121016234230.3b79a2fe@gentoo.org> <1350495278.2447.33.camel@belkin4> <20121017220707.02c6f5ac@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: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/sPbmUzDdTbMkjBoS+3aeMVr"; 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: 67af6a7a-e256-40e3-b43d-d7574eff3e1c X-Archives-Hash: a5fbbe340c186fd4aa8b83a2eeb30683 --Sig_/sPbmUzDdTbMkjBoS+3aeMVr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:36:27 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > > Well, it's not just about ebuilds you maintain. Think about something > > like the gcc-porting trackers where you have to touch a lot of ebuilds > > across the tree. You really do have to have a working knowledge of the > > differences between EAPIs to do so. My browser bookmark to the EAPI > > cheatsheet is one of the more frequently used as it is. >=20 > Can't you just ask the maintainers to fix their ebuilds? And if they > don't respond or at least cooperate, well, then treeclean them. Seriously, no you can't. I think you greatly underestimate the number of ebuilds in the tree that don't have an actual maintainer, and the availability of maintainers for those that do. If I had to wait for people to fix stuff on their own we'd still be on gcc 4.4. > I do agree that trying to auto-mangle ebuilds from 47 different EAPIs > doesn't make sense. Just assign a bug to the maintainer saying "do > this to your ebuild, or get it on EAPI foo so that I can fix it, by > or it is gone." So I can twiddle my thumbs for months waiting for something to happen or I can take 2 minutes to look at the EAPI spec. And I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in forcing people to update th= eir ebuilds just to suit my particular needs. They're the maintainer, they can run their shop however they see fit. I'm not going to try to get something removed just because I can't be bothered to remember a few details. Anyways, we're seriously getting off topic here. I don't think anyone objected to removing the EAPI 0 requirement for system packages (and in reality no one follows it anyways. Even portage is EAPI 3). --=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_/sPbmUzDdTbMkjBoS+3aeMVr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlCA0mYACgkQiqiDRvmkBmLJEQCg2hQjy4qwfKSsRdmJEaJPC6D+ wKoAn0C/zv0PCGwVLKFlHTTbba9hdTpE =K4uP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/sPbmUzDdTbMkjBoS+3aeMVr--