From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QFrsB-0002Ab-MO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:52:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 81A051C032; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:52:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91D1E1C001 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so4027582wwj.10 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:52:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=zrJqk/P6H0xyoazhbXpmMj+bRdsB2nJgWlH/HT4OqEs=; b=dUD04YZm5nxAB3gV1qHITwuq5k8ovHgQXLp3cieCI+9fGsHiR1swyk/4cGqAp1W21W plZXy48beubRYknhB0k12iVLjkGlrxKzfuvDnnctMRQ4cqAr49P+YtXmzvP/Gbpph/Xq 5Hpz6GrfCBJXCZ4CV9+TAuojj0Xjxe2FRy0rs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=EiBNJsW4b11bTj+2ZWBukxsBm5VgxDUZxE++S2mcdT5894/dUD4FWUuHphY2nYcm1R H2skSjG9l57RVEg5pE16PlkoNU9HYttp/K89HdFKzHk+Qqucp/WgfWQSBmypKQp+A36b ahZzJWIvvMboH7qlmpxIZ4pt4NDgXFK4DHTpo= 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 Received: by 10.227.37.220 with SMTP id y28mr1146543wbd.82.1304099535658; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.227.60.211 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:52:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <19898.62584.6075.983954@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <20110413181538.GA2894@linux1> <20110429070831.GA27531@linux1> <20110429122803.0ecc8060@googlemail.com> <20110429171825.GA5451@lust> <19898.62584.6075.983954@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:52:15 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: La4TK5AvUsz16CBwuvML9xkR7qA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc portage news item From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 48201a70df0e7bac6edb98972ec7be9f On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Alex Alexander wrote: > >> please have a look at the attached patch. > >> -EAPI="1" >> +EAPI="4" > > Shouldn't the ebuild's phase functions be updated from "EAPI 0 style" > to "EAPI 2 style" too? If the goal is to get this stable in a week, and bypass the 1 month waiting period, do we really want to change EAPI at this point? From an end-user perspective updating the EAPI on the ebuild provides no benefit. Why not just deal with that in a future revision? I don't see much value in rewriting the ebuild to use a new EAPI simply because 4 > 1. Rich