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 BB629138CE3 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:07:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B394E0B58; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:07:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com (mail-vc0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EAE6E09F5 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id im17so4822711vcb.33 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:07:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=qMEp/YcF5+riiOECqqTpsXIckClUo1kvheEE4OBMON4=; b=aGkkye2xvPtKeYZhCvNWxSsvViGSIRzNrt44garTmZQK3bPZLXKHsIf276IaXmlt1w KcSsoCQIOqrZ1UHflFu+3hGk/2+e+8i/l4SbUHK9C6qEBR/ehVyWohZDmjbRsosuzY+X w7zqKRawNLlcOyTcpYEY2eykhIQ6DzXO9khPFE2MdduUOaEr71qj5A2fisD4mAjxZodk rrxjlIS92jHnare9Vr2apHZpVpvKv2toYs/iUoW22lfDEANX53S9QEQPIPd3U8nm6k2g dmNyWM615ZXpleeY1L5AwvGJsPe4AeQibo6lfG8JjbZ/WUf64TjWXc49JvIfhWoG/mZc dX3w== 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 X-Received: by 10.220.95.139 with SMTP id d11mr6710555vcn.21.1392041247908; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:07:27 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.254.198 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:07:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52F8D850.5060404@gentoo.org> References: <52F8C97D.4030403@gentoo.org> <52F8D2E7.3030901@gentoo.org> <52F8D850.5060404@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:07:27 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5X8BM_VleZqnAxjaDwzMJx3Dh70 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: e85772a6-b6ab-4edd-be85-e80a97c0d3c1 X-Archives-Hash: 62c7e2a1e6a5e5021a9074d1a5acfd9b On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > I think it's safe to deprecate the antepenultimate EAPI, and then do the > banning on a more delayed and controlled basis. Yeah, I don't think we need to overly debate deprecation, other than in corner cases like the toolchain (just that minor thing...). I guess to turn things around, does anybody strongly object to the council banning an EAPI or two? Rich