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 A1BEC138010 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:44:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2259821C0CA; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:44:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C201621C0B1 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:43:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.89.69.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8928933DAAE for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:43:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:43:38 -0300 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. Message-ID: <20121019174338.25dbab2b@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1350676398.12879.50.camel@belkin4> 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> <1350575341.2447.40.camel@belkin4> <1350587136.2447.47.camel@belkin4> <1350667312.12879.11.camel@belkin4> <20121019145105.4927316b@gentoo.org> <1350670155.12879.22.camel@belkin4> <20121019154733.31b2284c@gentoo.org> <1350675125.12879.44.camel@belkin4> <5081AD7B.1040100@gentoo.org> <1350676398.12879.50.camel@belkin4> Organization: Gentoo 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: ae3003aa-e609-4f6b-a904-b6aef80b2127 X-Archives-Hash: f1aa0ad51fb24dcd03772046e690cc7d On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:53:18 +0200 Pacho Ramos wrote: > Seriously, what people is still having problems with handling eapi4? > If there are doubts about its usage, they should be asked and resolved > instead of ignored keeping ebuilds with older eapis. The only eapi > that probably adds no advantage for a lot of ebuilds is eapi3, but > that is not the case for eapi4 for example, that includes changes > that should be incorporated by most packages in the tree, some of > them introduced by it and others inherited from older eapis. > > What is the advantage of using eapi2 over eapi4 for example? What > "hard to learn" change was included in eapi4 over eapi2? Were you around when eapi2 got out and we had a bunch of packages running econf twice because we wanted to quickly get rid of built_with_use? A 5 mins fix is a 5 mins fix, if you include an eapi bump in those 5 mins then i expect crap to be committed to the tree or nothing at all.