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 35925138010 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:20:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D95FA21C065; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:20:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3509821C05D for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:20:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (77-254-166-212.adsl.inetia.pl [77.254.166.212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C528B33D7D8; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:14:30 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: pacho@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. Message-ID: <20121020081430.5e1c6e9b@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <1350713259.12879.56.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> <20121019174338.25dbab2b@gentoo.org> <1350713259.12879.56.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: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA256; boundary="Sig_/TR_yikrzBNfG46y9xPkQAgO"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 407b84b8-3a17-45b9-bb27-1f590b406670 X-Archives-Hash: 2b9b423457f1b96be727070e25112879 --Sig_/TR_yikrzBNfG46y9xPkQAgO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:07:39 +0200 Pacho Ramos wrote: > El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 17:43 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribi=C3=B3: > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:53:18 +0200 > > Pacho Ramos wrote: > >=20 > > > 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. > > >=20 > > > What is the advantage of using eapi2 over eapi4 for example? What > > > "hard to learn" change was included in eapi4 over eapi2? > >=20 > > 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? > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > Of course the idea wouldn't be to deprecate older eapis as soon as newer > one is released but, for example, do you really think forcing people to > use eapi4 now would cause so many problems? We could even create a team > (I would join to that one of course) to help in migration process. Well, creating a team dedicated to the cause is a good idea anyway. Without a policy or anything like that, the team could at least work on improving compatibility of eclasses with new EAPIs. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/TR_yikrzBNfG46y9xPkQAgO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAlCCQUsACgkQfXuS5UK5QB3EBAP/QiBa0GpWskwkz6RnMImeJbRB 2LiGZRPNXHvtqlmMIetXzb9faCc8GXyDCKPDJlvft9R0ZvwNAVy8/UsnYyESxT8s yFkolZR5z18JftvcufX46aDf7FfKJaOjzvvrjYQTT4a81ym5PJWiED3Dww+DRTle n9hYWXMXl0wCI8lPRfY= =qSFD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/TR_yikrzBNfG46y9xPkQAgO--