From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DCCD1382C5 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:55:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C8DE8E08DF; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:55:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 906EFE0871 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:55:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (host2092.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7865335D0B; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:55:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <23228.61527.41206.694485@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:55:35 +0200 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-04-08 In-Reply-To: <1522330445.1006.21.camel@gentoo.org> References: <87muyt9njh.fsf@gentoo.org> <1522318392.1006.16.camel@gentoo.org> <23228.52463.901357.194625@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <1522330445.1006.21.camel@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) From: Ulrich Mueller 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-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="pgp+signed+Q2jsJLyDY/HZYbb"; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 26e04eac-7e24-499e-beb7-488ccf819b34 X-Archives-Hash: 1f90932dd5edcd19321652093e097b99 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --pgp+signed+Q2jsJLyDY/HZYbb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Micha=B3 G=F3rny wrote: >> Stable Portage supports EAPI 6 since 2016-01-17, i.e. since 26 >> months. So we would be somewhat on the early side. > Not that it's less than the supported upgrade path. Yes, I don't think that we have a problem there. Just noting that's it would be sooner than for all previous EAPIs. >> What worries me more is that deprecation of EAPI 5 would apply to >> profiles too. However, all profiles are still at EAPI 5 at this >> point, and I don't see any value in upgrading them to EAPI 6. > That's a fair argument. However: > 1. Does deprecation really mean anything in terms of profiles=3F Even= > in the context of EAPI bans we explicitly stated that it affects new > packages and EAPI bumps. I think deprecating it for ebuilds is still > meaningful even if profiles would stay EAPI 5. OK, but then we should clearly state this. > 2. Do we want to keep profiles EAPI 5 indefinitely=3F If we consider > it a goal to reduce the number of EAPIs in use, I think it would be > reasonable to bump profiles to EAPI 6 proactively, even if it > doesn't change anything. The only effect this has is that it can impede some users' upgrade path. Or is there any feature in EAPI 6 that is needed in profiles=3F Another way to keep the number of EAPIs limited would be to skip EAPI 6 for profiles. We have done that for EAPIs 3 and 4 previously (i.e., all previous and current profiles were EAPI 0, 1, 2, or 5). Ulrich --pgp+signed+Q2jsJLyDY/HZYbb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJavPBJAAoJEMMJBoUcYcJzVksIAJNceunCSLCV/EUMKUoFwG80 //NLOGNj9bJ4wFpQoKJRgjDqGtun2coGyPa5Y35rsn9t7DkYN1sMj0cDj1T+3HaO vpJKy3Bu3QSf0YGpUsMdmNnUkWiofa5lReLQdwPthkB6xhKRN+mRGPaJDp9uEPTI AO3ZLRvfcTIetzbp/RGi91xNsdOLVnR7QuRCYiE9To3fk4irSe7jF8QqIaG6D/Du bWWpW9dbxQ7aTjMpCKI7ZQQo7aisO3E27NC13DPz/l63s1yQniR2rl1OVyTDVfvH tCkviFYPOY2rHzY/umqqp3ejk1966TCIzCmogGXOF7W15jEn70B+NYjrTz7dU5I= =VFC0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pgp+signed+Q2jsJLyDY/HZYbb--