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 9CDDE138010 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 09:02:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36B25E0020 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 09:02:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD94E0160 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 06:37:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (unknown [222.67.122.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E490633C5AF for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 06:37:32 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <506E8197.8060504@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:43:35 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120916 Thunderbird/15.0.1 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 09-10-2012 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> In-Reply-To: <20121005062851.GI912@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0fa02be2-ab34-4cab-af37-77575615fb52 X-Archives-Hash: c2067efc48dbdd0069e73b187a878fde On 10/05/12 14:28, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 04-10-2012 20:32:41 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> And what about current usage in the tree with current eapis? Regarding >>> IUSE_FLATTENED I have no problem with it, but will need to talk with >>> portage team also as they have the current implementation >> >> And then, I think council should clarify what to do with current usages >> in the tree with eapi0-4 > > Why should the Council clarify that? > > (Not that we're unwilling, but I don't see why Council should be the > initiator here.) > For quite a while we have had ideas and discussions about deprecating older EAPIs - expected benefits being things like not remembering the little variations between the six official flavours. I would suggest adding a repoman warning for adding new ebuilds with EAPI={1,2,3} now, turn that into an error for EAPI 1 in a short time (3 months?), then do the same for EAPI 2 a short while later with a longer timeline (as there are substantially more ebuilds with EAPI 2)