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 1S6lUr-0002tt-Ss for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:19:50 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 68803E07F6; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:19:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6943DE08EC for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:19:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (hnvr-4dbd5126.pool.mediaWays.net [77.189.81.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89DF61B400E for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:19:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F5CD065.2030307@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:18:45 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120309 Firefox/10.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.7.1 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> <20120311135503.707de3b6@googlemail.com> <4F5CC159.1020602@gentoo.org> <20120311154935.1182cf69@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120311154935.1182cf69@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: ecbe19a3-cf47-4842-8295-04f7a0e38b15 X-Archives-Hash: b9b1a1ed55119b0ee7389132fb1abc8f Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: > On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:14:33 +0100 > Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote: >> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: >>>> 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. >>> We have to support them indefinitely. It's not possible to >>> uninstall a package whose EAPI is unknown. >>> >> Would it be feasible to do a pkg_pretend() check and refuse >> install/upgrade if packages with unsupported EAPI are detected? > Uhm. I think your question doesn't make any sense, but maybe I'm just > not understanding it. Rephrase please. > Assume a new version 13.37 of your package manager drops EAPI=3D1 support= . So package-manager-13.37.ebuild checks in pkg_pretend() if any EAPI=3D1 package is installed on the system. If yes, then it aborts, telling the user to get rid of the package first. That way, the situation where the package manager does not know how to uninstall a package is avoided. Note that I do not suggest that this be done, I only show that it can be possible to drop old EAPI support. Best regards, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n