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 A9562138CE3 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:26:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E37FE0C35; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:26:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com (mail-we0-f175.google.com [74.125.82.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D0FCE0C2A for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:26:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q59so4376804wes.20 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:26:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=daYP513NX8LExFaHY3Tt2M9OcxK6wkF+fvk9QYhYoEM=; b=U9tOiOnzi89jpP0/g2LDjsBlAtmM/X2M8thCpyPRMc1m9ONgFk+J7rXp+65bLU2km5 h5nRPR44gaHgu+fxrdrqUOV83zv7uquU+FqfpZ4rB9BLZ3809n0lDeG3xtZGm8SJoGjt /SPj1ocFRFi2An91o0M+smkpCuBsl8gJKLNknUkvQbBc4Ud9Tk+cwxI/0JabrkI8Xq2g S2qMb33VnO+J9WvKT7kDVtCjRIXAsE3frjPmk7g9Cl+HvuC8WbocRoCgDnyHo5nb+Qbv D9MBxITPwVTWf+ACGq2W5+w+R26PxNaUhkCusDMmMPpFk1i/3JzZoG3ChD2mbQCUyvOj aaiw== X-Received: by 10.194.118.228 with SMTP id kp4mr213955wjb.94.1392049579226; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:26:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.0.40] (196-210-102-21.dynamic.isadsl.co.za. [196.210.102.21]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dd3sm36623503wjb.9.2014.02.10.08.26.18 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:26:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52F8FDA5.3000103@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:26:13 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon 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> <52F8D850.5060404@gentoo.org> <21240.61654.89346.949919@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <21240.63682.2569.943869@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> In-Reply-To: <21240.63682.2569.943869@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 8d4a54af-66da-43ef-be6b-d3fb69b53d67 X-Archives-Hash: 83a922cfd6a104642f6d4bedff6ca018 On 10/02/2014 18:05, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Removing support for it from a package manager should of course >> > happen much later (well after it is banned). > The package manager must be able to uninstall old packages, which > essentially means that support for old EAPIs cannot be removed. I feel this aspect needs to be limited, no user can reasonably expect Gentoo devs to retain support in the package manager for obsolete features indefinitely. We also shouldn't be too hasty in removing the support, but there has to be a cut-off point somewhere, a point of no return. It's probably measured in years, my thumb suck guess is 3 years after a given EAPI is finally obsoleted. As a real example - I know someone who proudly shows off a Gentoo host with a 2004 profile. Can he reasonably expect portage to still work flawlessly 10 years later? I feel no, luckily he agrees with me. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com