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 123331381FB for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:56:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A359F21C292; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:56:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19CFC21C28C; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:55:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (77-255-23-137.adsl.inetia.pl [77.255.23.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AE3633D8B0; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:55:38 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: zmedico@gentoo.org, chainsaw@gentoo.org, gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08 Message-ID: <20121227215538.528c5672@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <50DCB264.4050403@gentoo.org> References: <1356540147.20663.14.camel@localhost> <20121227143738.4d5ce2dd@pomiocik.lan> <50DCB264.4050403@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.14; 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_/usm0Xrtg9+PGE3vRTCACIH8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: dbe7f17e-56bb-4ddc-97f7-1d05a073feae X-Archives-Hash: 490245bdc29a4b75bb9e7132fd41a027 --Sig_/usm0Xrtg9+PGE3vRTCACIH8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:41:08 -0800 Zac Medico wrote: > On 12/27/2012 05:37 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > EAPI 5 provides use.stable.mask files to solve this but those files > > require profiles to be EAPI 5. Therefore, in order to be able to use it > > we would have to actually break the update path for older portage > > versions completely. >=20 > So, adding new profiles and deprecating the old ones is considered to > "break the update path for older versions"? I don't a problem with > deprecating profiles and forcing users to switch. The only manual labor > involved could be `emerge -1 portage && eselect profile set `. No, breaking the update path was about going EAPI=3D5 in the base profiles. But at some point I think we'd deprecate and remove the old profiles anyway. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/usm0Xrtg9+PGE3vRTCACIH8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAlDctcoACgkQfXuS5UK5QB1enQP9GjrpNgmpEEUqrC/ugZraktEa xpAwUJblgzx/UQFn/Rp8hR2AIo7F8vxz8jxzDN1y54jMV2e3V0tg0qCf1K7Kuc+O 5brpmom90gX//iRIGET+3sp2Y8Mw5GhA3JJOkoCbBQIVgySBpam9pf7RoBEafSjm PXjbr7DSAD+02mj6bkc= =2Lyp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/usm0Xrtg9+PGE3vRTCACIH8--