From: Jeff Horelick <jdhore@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 09-10-2012
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 10:51:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFhp8z5-0n2ML8bnoz7N4whuY-SZ-EDAv0Cvp_TsazFRp2s1GQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGfcS_mz9he7miCatepBR0oaf7Up-qM84QEUKEWfjWWeDGzirQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 5 October 2012 06:31, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> I don't see any advantage in deprecating intermediate EAPIs, before we
>> deprecate EAPI 0. What problem are you trying to solve?
>>
>
> ++
>
> 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.
>
> Legislate outcomes, not details.
>
> Rich
>
I don't think deprecating EAPIs for new ebuilds is a good/useful
thing. Sure the new EAPIs are nice and all, but if the package works
fine with an older EAPI and there's no need to use the features of a
newer one, why not leave it?
In some cases, EAPI bumps are detrimental to users on old systems that
have a older portage because they wind up being blocked by stuff like
new portage requiring new python which requires pkgconfig and all
pkgconfig ebuilds are EAPI=4 so you're stuck.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-05 15:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-25 9:24 [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 09-10-2012 Fabian Groffen
2012-09-25 9:59 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-09-27 6:19 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-09-27 22:13 ` Brian Harring
2012-09-28 0:14 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-09-28 12:12 ` Brian Harring
2012-10-03 5:04 ` Donnie Berkholz
2012-10-03 6:44 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-10-03 6:56 ` Matt Turner
2012-10-03 8:31 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-09-29 15:51 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-29 16:04 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-09-29 16:10 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-09-25 19:32 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-02 11:30 ` Fabian Groffen
2012-10-03 17:18 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-04 18:32 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-05 6:28 ` Fabian Groffen
2012-10-05 6:41 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-05 6:43 ` Patrick Lauer
2012-10-05 8:46 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-10-05 10:31 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-05 14:51 ` Jeff Horelick [this message]
2012-10-05 17:35 ` Pacho Ramos
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAFhp8z5-0n2ML8bnoz7N4whuY-SZ-EDAv0Cvp_TsazFRp2s1GQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jdhore@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox