From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64780-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3554138CE3
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:25:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 641A5E0B4E;
	Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:25:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 698D9E087F
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:25:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: djc)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8858133F8A2
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:25:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id vb8so7232129obc.31
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:24:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
         :subject:to:content-type;
        bh=9dWin3lHIgGH1O2nqpW/zZbZEOjqEyRv2nTpL21/PVU=;
        b=C3IrHTgOZCxKbnFeU4ZJQuawQeWBZ2Yk/flI8alVkxoisc41ZCQSRyTeSVkNDF9Yt1
         Stz5Z4y0e/xJEpc4zwVuM7P6qT8aZW6BAGLyYDG9qvX2US6f44JzzjLGkTFdChw0PmNN
         lzYkTlsEXf0tccRMU/ANOTr2eOaA+qvakkGpK9Rd6vdJs9Wl3ysryRGKmHXbRV+zscCJ
         /tHJVg2ci6Y68ymvx6ds9vQh6boVM9jLD0Wpn3qWzDjKsneP6wFZtMFbhtjsowxJlQf7
         WaKltck7S8Wcpc+89DAXYcnNU1dXCeWYp6MaTmYm/AHoCCbYrx2yEukmqNlWs3QV3sVD
         3xwQ==
X-Received: by 10.182.24.69 with SMTP id s5mr27139998obf.35.1392038699911;
 Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:24:59 -0800 (PST)
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 10.76.168.3 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:24:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20140210142159.711c3f46@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
References: <52F8C97D.4030403@gentoo.org> <CAKmKYaD9PegHTQMXs_bSZsJaNEP840JE7P215U5d4KG9i6Uh7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140210142159.711c3f46@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
From: Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:24:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKmKYaCM0hPk=VVPtqf1Vt4YEQQ_VPcLkXsfuO4FLZHo_ZmdOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules
To: Gentoo Development <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: ac84c67b-20fb-4cf9-99eb-8a5c3332fd5d
X-Archives-Hash: 12b3a952e97dd150a53646a3da0cf85c

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Apart from that, they however sit in the way of deprecating support for
> that EAPI; at one point it becomes tedious to have to support 10 EAPIs
> in our code (eg. Portage), hence we should aim to deprecate versions of
> a few years old. Keeping old stuff around can take its toll...

Sure, but Patrick was explicitly talking about a burden on developers,
not a burden on package manager implementers.

Cheers,

Dirkjan