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 1E69C138010 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:34:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 05C5E21C032; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B553C21C015 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:34:15 +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 3594533D9ED for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:34:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5080D845.2030103@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:34:13 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20121012 Thunderbird/15.0.1 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] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. References: <20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan> <20121012211023.592e82a1@gentoo.org> <20121013082820.75d280a1@sera-17.lan> <20121016234230.3b79a2fe@gentoo.org> <1350495278.2447.33.camel@belkin4> <20121017220707.02c6f5ac@gentoo.org> <20121018220903.344f8ab9@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20121018220903.344f8ab9@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a57dc6a6-c31d-4785-a4cd-0a21467b5d65 X-Archives-Hash: c90caef4defe1699afd32fc98ae51395 On 10/18/2012 09:09 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > Anyways, we're seriously getting off topic here. I don't think anyone > objected to removing the EAPI 0 requirement for system packages (and in > reality no one follows it anyways. An EAPI 0 requirement for system packages is just silly these days. > Even portage is EAPI 3). For the recored, stable portage is EAPI 2, and there wasn't much choice in the matter since portage depends on python-2.6 which uses EAPI 2 (and we don't want EAPI 0 or 1 package managers pulling in a portage which depends on a python with an unsupported EAPI). -- Thanks, Zac