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 7AC10138CE3 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:26:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1780BE0D0C; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:26:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f173.google.com (mail-we0-f173.google.com [74.125.82.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3F0AE0CFD for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id x55so4658747wes.18 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:26:09 -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=fQm1P4MKvEiH2/3gBARk0bh2qRn9BCHC+81RWhHhpNc=; b=cCjxnq7LxPUioTYKUn+rTGkBKfCtuBbfzYWlAvkxUQt+ZvwAvtnErVo6vIv2mla+b6 9oEulQXSnC4m2hnY/HRG7uLbpVxbK78dSe47CPWZqiY3kzQRuPsFMBZaubLKChaWeucs 9xLj+2CU8rnIDStwoNBzEvnPWzV55pPP4meTJPQMNP/Fm52dE+wGeezMQwlijkRAkOxH EHGcLcY0reRO2N1qiUZvo91iq+6COW1QpmR7pSR08UTYLBUY60FW+M1OgJLV+afAG6lO EC/+hrGxfNrXHzG9WpPtdWHpeRS2s7bV1XQaRRl31lfduhcizXd/vMHW2l3gjkG8HiHN Y/ug== X-Received: by 10.180.99.39 with SMTP id en7mr12338781wib.10.1392067569276; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:26:09 -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 f3sm40016776wiv.2.2014.02.10.13.26.08 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:26:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52F943EC.1010705@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:26:04 +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> <52F8FDA5.3000103@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: d6034a21-7c13-467d-8db7-6c4b66c7b1c3 X-Archives-Hash: 1d9e5116b8624d5c9b597ba7b8fef3d0 On 10/02/2014 22:56, Alec Warner wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Alan McKinnon > wrote: > > 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. > > > Why is that unreasonable? It's unreasonable for me to expect you to support long-dead features and EAPIs. Unless you choose to support them of course, or if it's no big deal to support them (I have a hunch this last is not true, that it is a big deal actually). The bottom line is that I don't pay you to write the pm I use, so I have no expectation that stuff will always work forever. A host where portage has not been updated for 2 years is basically a moribund host > > -A > > > > > 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 > > > -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com