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 1S6jJ7-00048Y-Af for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:59:33 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E2A41E050E; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:59:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60FF9E07A7 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:58:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.125.43.3] (193-64-20-58-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [193.64.20.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6683F1B4004 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F5CAE8E.7040409@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:54:22 +0200 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120303 Thunderbird/10.0.1 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] Deprecate EAPI1? References: <1331467306.11661.2.camel@belkin4> <4F5CA874.6070209@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: e283b503-ae89-4233-9cda-477f614c9963 X-Archives-Hash: 776b2e5c41d7944bd3394e38c3e9da34 On 03/11/2012 03:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we >> effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places) >> >> I wouldn't mind having a deprecation timeline for eapi3 too (now +6 >> months maybe?), but there's no need to rush things. > > Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who > runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I > think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs for > quite a while longer. > > I can imagine that this will lead to quite a bit of churn with > updating ebuilds and especially eclasses. If a package doesn't > require a feature in a newer EAPI, what is the point? +1, it doesn't make any sense unless the request is coming from dev-portage@ developers (Zac namely :-) as a part of code cleanup I still find EAPI=1 useful myself when, for example, new GNOME 3 packages gets introduced to tree and there is a need to touch EAPI=0 ebuilds just to add SLOT deps.