From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C84E1392E8 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 13:59:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D25DE0C14; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 13:59:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE8DBE0C14 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 13:59:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2021-07-11 - call for agenda items To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: From: Thomas Deutschmann Organization: Gentoo Linux Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:59:43 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.2 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KaEg1jA63LycmPkGl738JsIL6v1qSewiE" X-Archives-Salt: 752da1eb-21d8-413d-b1ba-8d3f7c8930b2 X-Archives-Hash: f22dfae367552454d38f2a9a69454c0e This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --KaEg1jA63LycmPkGl738JsIL6v1qSewiE Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="mnzTAeKkoSQeZAWuzGfXZQF2BG9J6NkFC"; protected-headers="v1" From: Thomas Deutschmann To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2021-07-11 - call for agenda items References: In-Reply-To: --mnzTAeKkoSQeZAWuzGfXZQF2BG9J6NkFC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2021-07-05 12:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Now that EAPI is supported by stable Portage (3.0.20-r6 went stable > on the last arch today), I would like to ask the council to deprecate > EAPI 6, both for ebuilds and for profiles. Could you please outline the consequences of that? I mean, it's still allowed to rev bump an EAPI 6 ebuild to add an=20 important patch (like fixing a security vulnerability) or fix deps,=20 especially for non-maintainers without requiring ebuild to be ported to=20 a non-deprecated EAPI first, right? I.e. "just like before". You are not talking about changing that. --=20 Regards, Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 --mnzTAeKkoSQeZAWuzGfXZQF2BG9J6NkFC-- --KaEg1jA63LycmPkGl738JsIL6v1qSewiE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="OpenPGP_signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_signature" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- wsB5BAABCAAjFiEEExKRzo+LDXJgXHuURObr3Jv2BVkFAmDkYc8FAwAAAAAACgkQRObr3Jv2BVmo 7gf9G1iM6IKE9zGVe6Z4YWHtrg4VWrXe+6bW1tZHes/5GSmXzoHG5IDCpyKjEf3lgtTu7RFjDagt Ax3TDsFbg7qMz4kEq8EL0ec4TkaPtfgq7A215YKovlZrkPzQzEhTJoVAi/SFDo3AeIjH4pxfvXMT phgLsHBM5jYnwVQAsIuK/lRSdYrJiTLh7mxAxa4k5+IKn1aTWUzKTDnZUJmKtYF2ogajB4GCLJuO dJYhJms3Hmx4zXV1jmSZV0lfRXGBBwmNmwj+ke7XWIbU3a0WLUg2IlhJfalVf/zLTaZcIVC3H+kh 7qewzlcT/n2fqiZhqPO8unrEVK7OgarVc6yjhw5TSg== =qqsJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --KaEg1jA63LycmPkGl738JsIL6v1qSewiE--