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 15E991381F3 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2013 21:51:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 13730E08BF; Sat, 6 Apr 2013 21:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7460CE08B5 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2013 21:51:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (255.Red-2-137-58.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.58.255]) (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 776D333DD3B for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2013 21:50:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1365285000.12962.0.camel@localhost> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-04-09 From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:50:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20130406154314.0d7dc7ef@caribou.gateway.2wire.net> References: <20817.55135.354752.397336@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20826.59983.990551.148156@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130403110754.41276e21@sera-20.lan> <20831.474.441795.677277@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130406154314.0d7dc7ef@caribou.gateway.2wire.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.0 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: ec570bb5-2ecd-47bf-842d-98746f6affc3 X-Archives-Hash: 751b07b292a3a0ad97297c4ca5b0e3ec El sáb, 06-04-2013 a las 15:43 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió: > On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 18:54:50 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > I'd be a little more proactive and deprecate EAPIs 0 and 1 immediately > > (which would correspond to the 4 years mentioned above). When doing a > > version or revision bump, the ebuild should be updated to use a newer > > EAPI. There can be exceptions, e.g. for security bumps. > > Toolchain packages are EAPI 0 and we aren't changing. > and why? Only for knowing the reasons :)