From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-50157-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1S6jDD-0003PK-4x
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:53:27 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DC68E0743;
Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:53:12 +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 D5E14E064A
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:52:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so2407485bkw.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 06:52:41 -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=AkJYjz/pf7PunnzvLH3wQatTgo0ybcMElnKktic+saE=;
b=JEfNkeIc/3sxvKwZywjljGbJZLUWlow4Bs4dBryWsBKPmkOaWMQQJtn3mz8BNucV4n
+27nsf9RQFXgIJdORZr1cIf3cQEVVaoEhEh/XmK3IhuEowhdqs4KLhbQIgXU++hhhg/+
V4zGOdoCR0llVu8Bk01/TniVQ+4Cd2wSutgDWNCO99ZwKxKgAgiXOSLxVIynammnxDOM
nMUnJMAXCVsVoEDCMKe4Hkc4ulTfLnoiYejxmrJE8hEz9j6hKdFEzyuQWIjUUcK6ZnLQ
VRbFRG+k4GhChO7NnF4Tamb86UPgs5XigIK47y1qnAF2mlprcOlXR+voq60nCm+fPgF7
NCeQ==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.129.71 with SMTP id n7mr3459505bks.91.1331473960948; Sun,
11 Mar 2012 06:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.205.32.194 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 06:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F5CA874.6070209@gentoo.org>
References: <1331467306.11661.2.camel@belkin4>
<4F5CA874.6070209@gentoo.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:52:40 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: nRvGjAM2ECuh5lpPA60RLZQHhvk
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_nRgRTKh=Ks916kbtjsAkFWjZjbOyjtdXAxm97AKHrLdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Deprecate EAPI1?
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: b5a5d6d8-4c92-415b-9bac-6225d8580fa8
X-Archives-Hash: 4a7a05f52d0842e0d2c351e8d2d68c74
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we
> effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places)
>
> I wouldn't mind having a deprecation timeline for eapi3 too (now +6
> months maybe?), but there's no need to rush things.
Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs for
quite a while longer.
I can imagine that this will lead to quite a bit of churn with
updating ebuilds and especially eclasses. If a package doesn't
require a feature in a newer EAPI, what is the point?
Why not deprecate the x86 arch while we're at it... :)
Rich