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 3A022138CE3 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:34:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D5D3CE0933; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:34:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f176.google.com (mail-ve0-f176.google.com [209.85.128.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4E36E0729 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:34:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id oz11so4937375veb.35 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:34:00 -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=t+vWSHm4wQZ6MZdjT/ZXq9V/40//HcwOVAAYMa1zrLM=; b=tZ4FsNxQj3Jm+y29MO9crO9dAEY3F9iUagCOmb19H8lfWXzExv9l2KRVE4dpthoWr9 0UBa41/SVzCHDiISgNfcE3oFk/Pt77/q2JMBLgvmqONkUBbRaolWgKhRmkPhDkZKaDks nr8P2J9+fL0cxr5b6GjOmsaQHwv+1RXU31he27grJgLQIpNVUNosw01MExE8JCm8yNyH 6sTjKQtvs9XBcbSVQygXN9kWQ6ifF+YTAm6L2HQSpnEmVhAc1nrpnRb0phBWrOKt7M+v XFSl9pua+f3asWH0ImnSVAAqfz96Rfe/gDnAU6X6sW5eqXAQjchzaJXlTEH2qqfWB8hK AR7Q== 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 10.58.169.7 with SMTP id aa7mr1793986vec.24.1392039240135; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:34:00 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.254.198 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:34:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52F8C97D.4030403@gentoo.org> References: <52F8C97D.4030403@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:34:00 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5Wrmcaanz3Zn0rR79UMlFfre3GU 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: 3e36397e-c3d1-40c3-b811-71b3f4263184 X-Archives-Hash: fba324b635f3b57b1c2c14119b83e725 On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Adding EAPI 1 and 2 ebuilds is forbidden. (repoman-fatal) Does "adding" in this case include revbumps? > More than two supported EAPIs is an unneeded burden on developers. Is this really a generally held belief? I don't find it a burden that ebuilds in the tree may use various EAPIs. I could see how they make scripted mass-updates to ebuilds more difficult, though I'm not sure how much of an issue this is in practice. I could also see how supporting many EAPIs could be a burden on package managers, but if that is a concern I'd be interested in hearing from these maintainers. My sense is that deprecating probably makes sense, but banning should only be done if in reaction to a particular problem. Repoman warnings call attention to the issue so that the maintainer is aware and can take the appropriate action, but without restricting their actions. Now, if people are actually impacted by all the EAPIs I don't mind pushing harder to get rid of some. Rich