From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NbdwN-000173-3W for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:50:31 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B9F8AE0AEB; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:49:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9550DE0AEB for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:49:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.22.10] (ip68-4-152-120.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.152.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288E766393 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:49:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4B65C30E.5090306@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:51:10 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091218 Thunderbird/3.0 ThunderBrowse/3.2.6.8 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-3 times and dates References: <20100122094627.TA4624b.tv@veller.net> <82dd739f1001310647p13282512r9250f2b8687dbc38@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <82dd739f1001310647p13282512r9250f2b8687dbc38@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a9b338c6-1934-4ea9-9583-2981ded5df64 X-Archives-Hash: 84e3772612b040f044d0a45d78d8f6ce On 01/31/2010 06:47 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On 22 January 2010 08:58, Torsten Veller wrote: >> When can we stabilize EAPI-3 ebuilds? > > Note that you can't stick EAPI 3 ebuilds in gentoo-x86, even > package.masked, until the Portage version used to generate the > metadata shipped by rsync supports EAPI 3. Which apparently is not > yet... It's fixed now: http://bugs.gentoo.org/302993 -- Thanks, Zac