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 B68EB138010 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 18:02:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FF5B21C00B for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 18:02:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F240D21C005 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 17:36:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (230.Red-2-137-57.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.57.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CEC6833C4F0 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 17:35:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 09-10-2012 From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <20120925092414.GL37574@gentoo.org> <1348601570.3603.4.camel@belkin4> <20121002113020.GZ37574@gentoo.org> <1349284689.2200.50.camel@belkin4> <1349375561.2200.57.camel@belkin4> <20121005062851.GI912@gentoo.org> <506E8197.8060504@gentoo.org> <20590.40556.939437.204618@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-rvXZxaFW8VtzA3keQcQD" Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 19:35:55 +0200 Message-ID: <1349458555.2200.71.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: 9b055fba-8f54-4b46-bb05-7ca8b3abe3bb X-Archives-Hash: 9709174d7761299fdc9a09b92f4f679b --=-rvXZxaFW8VtzA3keQcQD Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El vie, 05-10-2012 a las 06:31 -0400, Rich Freeman escribi=C3=B3: > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > I don't see any advantage in deprecating intermediate EAPIs, before we > > deprecate EAPI 0. What problem are you trying to solve? > > >=20 > ++ >=20 > I'm all for a policy that says to use slot deps whenever appropriate, > or to otherwise do things that actually have a real impact on the > quality/functionality of the distro. That might in practice mean > using newer EAPIs on a lot of stuff. However, I don't see the value > in bumping for its own sake. >=20 > Legislate outcomes, not details. >=20 > Rich >=20 >=20 Probably deprecating eapi1 would be interesting as probably most ebuilds would benefit from having additional src_prepare and src_configure phases. Regarding eapi4, it also has interesting changes like automatically passing --disable-dependency-tracking, they also ban dosed and dohard --=-rvXZxaFW8VtzA3keQcQD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAlBvGnsACgkQCaWpQKGI+9Q3KwCfUzsHbQWVtR/sPiH3ddpBbrmO VWkAnjTQX6E1cTXfa/7Ag4EKSD89vx8F =FD4i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-rvXZxaFW8VtzA3keQcQD--