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 85B88138CE3 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:47:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EA75AE0C6D; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:47:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vb0-f50.google.com (mail-vb0-f50.google.com [209.85.212.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05687E0C62 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id w8so5146813vbj.9 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:47:23 -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:cc:content-type; bh=lbGc+5YCmRt/zwy+ulMk2sKY5ADzn5gIJH+zotdFF+8=; b=kbkNPtt/ioqLvDrPZP4QbO3nVe4Js5T106KPJT1aUFrc2RRjCv7xFRPuCqE51jZJ0j gUXtfjdQtjNIisHLNxgznFvfXwkEbfv5E/i6MjmyfZ3l5cD+2V3cu1iPze0z74e8s7Up iXD8yqsAkvaoL8ST0bJtcbZRiH/dYlOxSWOJCcCKYc5yze6yn5QyeutWoxmZ1ZT5uRIh OjUBal3JQdUj17+JKIsDHvfgYVd5JHPzPjfjl8qyFPZHnsY2fYWtYgefvbYZPZIGHzHx vLyzHr8wQEusgO8x6FYHbWkqkr5QnXUrGde7AzW4mnR4Kb6aa69Mnu2zbO9h2kYE+iwp 78dw== 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 10.52.155.66 with SMTP id vu2mr230910vdb.50.1392054443266; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:47:23 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.254.198 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:47:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140210182027.2469bc1d@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> 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> <20140210182027.2469bc1d@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:47:23 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Kdfk_tvJufuqhbpFIa2yvdEOETs Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ulrich_M=FCller?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 63683697-5068-4316-8239-b0c07e6d7405 X-Archives-Hash: fe94d4e1757ee66bc10205d4c17d14f9 On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:05:22 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> The package manager must be able to uninstall old packages, which >> essentially means that support for old EAPIs cannot be removed. > > That's only a subset of the entire EAPI, which could be separately > still supported; while no longer supporting the majority of it, for > example, whether src_prepare is supported doesn't really matter anymore > when you are uninstalling a package. One could make up a list; however, > it's not a problem yet, it might become one in 10 years or so... Well, that strikes me as a cross-that-bridge-when-we-get-to-it problem. However, if maintaining the code becomes a problem we could always create a script that finds and re-installs any package that uses an about-to-be-desupported EAPI and then the system will be clean of them. It doesn't sound nearly as bad as that glibc upgrade that broke the ABI a decade ago, and it would only impact packages that hadn't been otherwise updated in a long time... Rich