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 2D3D1138010 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:02:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D663E0D20; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:02:14 +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 5C268E0D2C for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:02:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-195-43.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.195.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ED6933DD01 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:02:12 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <515BB7D1.4020509@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:02:09 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130402 Thunderbird/17.0.4 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] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-04-09 References: <20817.55135.354752.397336@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20826.59983.990551.148156@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <515B5DB5.5040304@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <515B5DB5.5040304@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 56c4d441-e31b-4b74-b225-0c76bb337c5c X-Archives-Hash: 096f783c7b3f7632f92278948c516682 On 04/02/2013 03:37 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 4/2/13 7:25 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> We already "encourage" using the newest EAPI, see 20110308 meeting. >> (Though I fail to find this recommendation in the devmanual, shouldn't >> it be there?) >> >> Should we have a stricter rule? Would such a rule help significantly >> reducing the number of EAPI 0 ebuilds? > > Rules do not make things happen, especially not in a situation like here. > > Known problems: > - EAPI-0 used to provide an upgrade path (for system packages) This only makes sense as long as we have profiles supporting the relevant EAPI. Do we still have any EAPI 0 profiles that are relevant? In profiles/releases/10.0/eapi we have EAPI 2. So, perhaps those system packages could be using EAPI 2 as well. -- Thanks, Zac