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 06154138CE3 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E413E0B4F; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:43:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3986EE09C9 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:43:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [114.91.160.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DA2C33F62D for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:43:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52F8D850.5060404@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:46:56 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 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] Tightening EAPI rules References: <52F8C97D.4030403@gentoo.org> <52F8D2E7.3030901@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <52F8D2E7.3030901@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 519de411-8b99-4e8b-ad8b-2835f5ed8f07 X-Archives-Hash: c156ecd1216fee49a196a4d6444f0588 On 02/10/2014 09:23 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > The statement "Deprecating an EAPI can mean breakage" depends on what we > mean by "deprecating." I'm assuming here we mean something like repoman > won't allow commits at EAPI=1,2,3 but that ebuilds in the tree at those > EAPI's will continue working. Eg. dosed which was deprecated in the > EAPI 3 to 4 jump. Right now EAPI 1 and 2 are deprecated, which means repoman prints some warnings that get ignored and nothing happens. Going from the current state I would distinguish between deprecated (=unwanted, but tolerated) and banned (not tolerated) > > I think we should look at the question of deprecating EAPI's on and ad > hoc basis with discussion on the list and a vote in the council. I think it's safe to deprecate the antepenultimate EAPI, and then do the banning on a more delayed and controlled basis. Patrick