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 1RKloG-0007of-1w for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:57:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7474821C050; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:57:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B856421C037 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:56:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.2] (dslb-084-058-187-136.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.58.187.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAB011B4017 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EAE46A6.60408@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:56:38 +0100 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111004 Thunderbird/7.0.1 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] portability.eclass: dead egethome, egetshell, is-login-disabled funcs ? References: <4EADD0CF.70601@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4EADD0CF.70601@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 705f3c11-96d9-4cee-af88-de878a735eea X-Archives-Hash: 1abfdc29e0ee6862faea364edae5c103 On 10/30/11 23:33, Petteri R=E4ty wrote: > On 27.10.2011 2.40, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> i can't see any ebuild/eclass using egethome, egetshell, >> is-login-disabled from portability.eclass. anyone have a reason for >> keeping these before i punt them ? >> -mike >> >=20 > Breaking overlays. grepping over all overlays that I can checkout I find only the openbsd overlay having a copy of the eclass, but zero ebuilds using it > Isn't the standing policy still to not break > backwards compatibility as long as an eclass exists? >=20 > Regards, > Petteri >=20