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 97037138010 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:02:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A43C21C015 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:02:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qc0-f181.google.com (mail-qc0-f181.google.com [209.85.216.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945E7E03E0 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 14:51:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x40so1171232qcp.40 for ; Fri, 05 Oct 2012 07:51:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=BAzr+t3KByq1bP3IcKAoNYoOA5YZWBgMijtA7ebW+i0=; b=OPEESTZnFdEm7RKITUNhDqeTj6m/duVKJRlznbWVHDT0PAXLpB7wZF4/GRRal5t14u tcXF0isQ3AisSWbGYniRLjxBYe5dfMBv5KSWa6Xab0qcd4tU4ACBUIo82wfU/nvCqq+W 5Mc8iusmmLZEfM4uN5/EguLgP+54Lel4d5G+SL3f9V2eOKqIbQguSflpWBmtyUUXVjFX 86CB3Nanp9SwaCqZG6JUMmnpCTDFLRnGByGUGv87wug0D1BvY1h3UU79mKaqKZohX5SK 0rigBOtE0f4NTltJeBXW9NDoHfGLyoUhZvqMun0BxO6R+aAK4rIzz1Zw+rnE42JVyxmK kZFg== 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 Received: by 10.49.1.43 with SMTP id 11mr25966884qej.41.1349448718076; Fri, 05 Oct 2012 07:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jdhore1@gmail.com Received: by 10.49.127.238 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 07:51:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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> <506E8197.8060504@gentoo.org> <20590.40556.939437.204618@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 10:51:58 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ObuCMURqttnfA2hpZ0e2PbQxDOc Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 09-10-2012 From: Jeff Horelick To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 506c077b-7a74-4807-ae32-bbd211858c75 X-Archives-Hash: 1d61a32dfbf69d80f27ba1da0bf94c1d On 5 October 2012 06:31, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Ulrich Mueller 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.