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 ) 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 ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:52:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so2407485bkw.40 for ; 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: 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 10.204.129.71 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: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Deprecate EAPI1? From: Rich Freeman 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 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