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 1RF0mc-0003i5-Lh for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:43:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F0A5721C20C; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:43:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F3221C208 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gx0-f181.google.com (mail-gx0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: djc) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A5A211B402A for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggnp2 with SMTP id p2so1761964ggn.40 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 02:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.44.104 with SMTP id d8mr7063168obm.7.1318671788661; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 02:43:08 -0700 (PDT) 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 10.182.116.74 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 02:42:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E98E7B8.7000102@gentoo.org> References: <4E8766F1.2020609@gentoo.org> <20111014193958.GA3465@localhost> <4E98A793.8050806@gentoo.org> <4E98B88F.3010206@gentoo.org> <4E98BCD9.5060204@gentoo.org> <4E98DDA4.60002@gentoo.org> <4E98E7B8.7000102@gentoo.org> From: Dirkjan Ochtman Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:42:48 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] python.eclass EAPI 4 support, this gets really annoying To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: c211342132e8ee5249861eb6503b3ddd On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 03:54, Mike Gilbert wrote: > That would be an ok approach from my perspective: We could just change > line 14 of python.eclass and let package maintainers report breakage as > they increment EAPI. I am confident that nothing EAPI <= 3 would break. > > Is anyone (especially djc and the python herd members) opposed to this? Seems fine to me; I can't really think of a practical better way. Cheers, Dirkjan