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 6BCFB138CE3 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 91221E0BEE; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:42:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vb0-f51.google.com (mail-vb0-f51.google.com [209.85.212.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A604DE0B76 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:42:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id 11so4783326vbe.24 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:42:33 -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=rVTg21g4QtS78SzaS1rDNpfIXDmDuBcdQA/NCabJv7M=; b=HzU0vNPB1osIGK/Rwg6TMSPTr9QkniS+wEhX4VD/HPy4RkXqzAnSen/ZTMFnnA/6A9 X6crXtASjkhvbCj0nvGm2ypkZz00MaQFS56s0wKYclSFJ6pyal32LN/eFp7tB8on1L82 vq9Cb6+Xm3Mnr2ATo4SHaoHCO9kQnGYWmGXABdoh3yNSCSUFUQhDTPiC21ExMCQ2/Gzm J9ytzdywKSLClGM/s2NSDN841z+4f7f6kg3gE7Q+ijRynF0iMBJ5cSEPShJoudDnySu+ vcwWvEUjxcUfsvgVXAZQVhdN83/LtRlCo0ExGwEbxXuqFRBtzb8mHuxehsDygCysaaBG /N4w== 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 10.52.121.113 with SMTP id lj17mr20829196vdb.21.1392046952948; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:42:32 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.254.198 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:42:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <21240.61654.89346.949919@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <52F8C97D.4030403@gentoo.org> <52F8D2E7.3030901@gentoo.org> <52F8D850.5060404@gentoo.org> <21240.61654.89346.949919@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 10:42:32 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hyDLdn1d_ngvjBYrhKVydymjAQQ 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: 380a1300-a87c-4bb4-b17d-69fc123815d1 X-Archives-Hash: c3cf1229c62337947b3df263a60954e3 On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > I'd rather argue in terms of time instead of version numbers, because > of the upgrade path for old systems. We guarantee one year for stable > systems, but IMHO we should be more conservative for EAPI deprecation > and go for two or three years there. By EAPI deprecation it is meant that we discourage using the old EAPI in the tree. Removing support for it from a package manager should of course happen much later (well after it is banned). There is always the upgrade path problem when system packages start using the new EAPI and eventually the dependencies to do a portage upgrade can't be installed using an old version of portage. However, that problem exists regardless of EAPI deprecation - it is more about when we migrate system packages or whether we save tree/distfile snapshots and so on. Even if we don't deprecate the old EAPIs if @system maintainers start bumping their packages there will eventually be problems for users who don't update soon. Rich