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 CAA1F138CE3 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF3D3E0CC6; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:04:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEF3EE0CC0 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:04:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shanghai.paradoxon.rec (p4FDA90B5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.218.144.181]) (using SSLv3 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: polynomial-c) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBF2433F825; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:04:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 20:04:17 +0100 From: Lars Wendler To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: patrick@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules Message-ID: <20140210200417.019e8ae9@shanghai.paradoxon.rec> In-Reply-To: <52F8D850.5060404@gentoo.org> References: <52F8C97D.4030403@gentoo.org> <52F8D2E7.3030901@gentoo.org> <52F8D850.5060404@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.22; 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-sha512; boundary="Sig_/NSqEMtMixL8n+oNBBE62Izn"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 79e802f7-637a-4dd8-8e15-c7ac9b425536 X-Archives-Hash: e4fe285fc3c52322e6a169065e431723 --Sig_/NSqEMtMixL8n+oNBBE62Izn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:46:56 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: >On 02/10/2014 09:23 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> The statement "Deprecating an EAPI can mean breakage" depends on >> what we mean by "deprecating." I'm assuming here we mean something >> like repoman won't allow commits at EAPI=3D1,2,3 but that ebuilds in >> the tree at those EAPI's will continue working. Eg. dosed which was >> deprecated in the EAPI 3 to 4 jump. > >Right now EAPI 1 and 2 are deprecated, which means repoman prints some >warnings that get ignored and nothing happens. Not in my case. I EAPI-bump each ebuild to either EAPI-4 (base-system packages) or EAPI-5 where repoman complains about when I put my fingers on them... I hope I am not the only one doing this. >Going from the current state I would distinguish between deprecated >(=3Dunwanted, but tolerated) and banned (not tolerated) > >>=20 >> I think we should look at the question of deprecating EAPI's on and >> ad hoc basis with discussion on the list and a vote in the council. > >I think it's safe to deprecate the antepenultimate EAPI, and then do >the banning on a more delayed and controlled basis. > >Patrick > > --=20 Lars Wendler Gentoo package maintainer GPG: 4DD8 C47C CDFA 5295 E1A6 3FC8 F696 74AB 981C A6FC --Sig_/NSqEMtMixL8n+oNBBE62Izn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJS+SK1AAoJEPiazRVxLXTFNhwP/RWHxDD3UYf9f+2eL1pMiQSs TPv3zDtJ7z0zXdHEKUbXD8NSod/Ik4ya7A3U6YkPTa8c7gzsEY2hjKsL4pcg0PHx iW283uQIMaZgXxTRmdz1yuv2QFOLuXe/yGhDjKUB1ERvnEoCMh++uSmT1rfxqeDI DO3rKUoqWLlNn3zbb8cIgOtUZ8m44vqQGAhlzTXqNwaGtCxSRRG0exMDSwUU/C8q 4M/O1Sxf5lXc7zHIf/8yASKL83FfYHNqAoWDJrG/ki4CrPgFlBiD0+8JkXe3Ibkm T1X2obuiowCR75FAo99xGbbe7BEfZ7SqkY4nWHBKCdZpIv3qQMrAMnK4Km1zKzXt 7MtgmVulVl9QocL7NpNGI9r5gQtZQzQ3+0DZwi20LB1uXxpQevCKbHaFbImAq7yG Ungt5rdqJ1rBZ0Xz/oJHWHq+07JJ5EVvnBvwLXX2SpLNDVYqJynsV0Q5O229yo4a 9UBh4+4V/SklO55l138HBgmfjLNj9/fYT8+Amt1V20Qwj35jKMA30JVujeIiWDKG hyLDamvj5r4D364XFEqgZ3Y3mcyQNlTPNt49D7y2AeFqOfSkIZ0LRcrXffcNb0jJ ysVFE1/lwi2tbUjRneiQ023neW6kuhVpfDnt/rMexE1ynee1TPRYQCEfwoaTetWE lcXpYzAunCRXTrx2JbOj =x77y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/NSqEMtMixL8n+oNBBE62Izn--