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 1S7WqQ-000648-Ow for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:53:15 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0007E094E; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:53:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2F8E0940 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:52:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D1931B4003 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:52:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F5F9766.6050607@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:52:22 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120304 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> <20120311135503.707de3b6@googlemail.com> <4F5CC159.1020602@gentoo.org> <20120312004935.GB7579@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20120312004935.GB7579@localhost> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c23e7c92-9372-4ff2-9b57-46319f5f9e0c X-Archives-Hash: d88824cfa036c5f7d57c936d9e7003fb On 03/11/2012 05:49 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > If people want to enforce the eapi1 is no longer used in the gentoo > repo, that's fine- we stick a list of acceptable EAPI's into > its layout.conf. That sounds pretty reasonable, although I think a deprecation warning would be more appropriate that an outright ban. A deprecation warning should be sufficient to send the intended message, without placing an unnecessary burden on people doing simple version bumps or adding ebuilds that are already well tested though they happen to use an older EAPI. -- Thanks, Zac