From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49DB1138010 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:46:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0413D21C024; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:45:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC8821C01A for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:45:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.145] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.240.69.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B69633D9B1 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50788156.60104@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:45:10 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.7) Gecko/20120925 Thunderbird/10.0.7 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] [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. References: <20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan> <20121012203806.GA19820@waltdnes.org> In-Reply-To: <20121012203806.GA19820@waltdnes.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 791e4cdd-c336-4ba5-8cc1-0a88d8c183d2 X-Archives-Hash: 2a9c183642dd2fc581369d400155d237 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 12/10/12 04:38 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:53:15PM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote >> From time to time the topic of deprecating EAPIs comes up and >> usually one suggestion is to keep 0 and start with converting >> EAPI 1 ebuilds. Then someone comes along and asks what is the >> point? Indeed, a fair question. > > It's my understanding that higher EAPI levels include more > features. How backwards compatable are the EAPI levels? I.e. > assume that we take an ebuild with EAPI 0, and slap in EAPI=1 (or 2 > or 3, etc) at the top, without any other changes. Are there any > circumstances where the ebuild would behave differently and/or > break? Yes. There is more than just new features that have been added. Some default operations have changed. Eclass behaviour can also be different. I'll let others go into the details, but one of the big changes between EAPIs is the way an unspecified DEPEND or RDEPEND is handled. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlB4gVYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB45QD+PC6PvspnXdmOhMAEOIDPxh2m 4RDWrTw8t86O+iyKodsA/RdRo1r1Xxc734hXbAwtZlxjC3KcU/mnGQVysvflOdjW =uk9m -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----