public inbox for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.


  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