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 A6DCD138010 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:01:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D87AE01BE; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:00:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D2AE011A for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id jg15so3477026bkc.40 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:00:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=yAEPxAn/x7EpFi96R0Ml93Gb9wceLMN0rrJ8KpTwB0g=; b=MMKhxaxwM4YmnrjJDyMBxm1NaV/frKdnMYiYmyTqKpWWApZCK6p2OV4rlqeT77tgeK vNK68tcSDU+2PFbVV3qJpJ8GivcT6O3CnVaNvUvHaamDvTDRyu+fsT9Ie7OIjacYfLxu q8MG4/Z5MEf/6sdobEgvxgk7Rb2LKYDFLxvf64SL9oNMwTxicFlR2rYfc0AjOx47xgW1 80FiSptrcjD5y7paKCbKeb27KrANdwfSUZkbyS1fkHLS0jpJ4QslLeMjlLT/UApicVX3 idbpGC7Lb2UKwgjeOVRe76rYLHrdnTML/R2+lj6ZDNtijcmHRs03K3aR39NvO569pAa2 LjKQ== 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 10.204.146.83 with SMTP id g19mr5717476bkv.33.1350500412222; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.156.147 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:00:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1350495278.2447.33.camel@belkin4> References: <20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan> <20121012211023.592e82a1@gentoo.org> <20121013082820.75d280a1@sera-17.lan> <20121016234230.3b79a2fe@gentoo.org> <1350495278.2447.33.camel@belkin4> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:00:12 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AuRM3-RehBn8ftWDDwsz_7ZjZV0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: fe2d3613-4df6-48af-8333-f3c74a21b3d3 X-Archives-Hash: 52f0f80d112d5a4a79679afbfe5ae934 On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Would be easier to prune old versions if we "force" them to be less > using at least preventing new ebuilds to use them. For example, what is > the advantage for a new ebuild to still rely on old src_compile phase > instead of src_prepare/configure...? It can be bumped by copying it from the ebuild for the previous version, thus introducing no errors. Or maybe the person who authored it (who might or might not even be a developer) isn't familiar with the latest EAPI, but the code still works. A policy that says all new ebuilds shall use EAPI foo might result in fewer new ebuilds. Sure, they'll have new and shiny fooness, but arguably I'd rather have more packages supported on older EAPIs then fewer packages supported on newer ones. Again, as I stated before, things that actually benefit the end users like slot dependencies are fine to mandate when it makes sense to do so. I think the whole developers-can't-handle-47-EAPIs thing is a red herring. The fact that there are packages written in Erlang in the tree doesn't cause me any issues even though I haven't had to do any work in Erlang. If I ever wanted to maintain such a package then I'd take the time to learn it as needed. Likewise, if I wanted to maintain a package that used EAPI joe and I really prefer to work in EAPI fred, then I'd revise it at my next convenience. Rich