On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:07:23 +0200
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote:

> On Sunday 20 September 2009 13:28:40 Richard Freeman wrote:
> > Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > So, should we always keep a working EAPI 0 version around?  If not, when
> > > can we drop support for old EAPIs?  Your opinions please.
> > 
> > You might want to define what you mean by dropping support for old
> > EAPIs?  Do you mean:
> > 
> > 1.  No longer ensuring that users who have pre-EAPI versions of portage
> > have a clean upgrade path.
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > 2.  No longer supporting EAPI=0/1 in package managers.

Sorry for not being more clear.  I meant the former.  Should we keep an EAPI
0 version of system packages around indefinitely, and if not, what can we use
as a rule of thumb to decide when it's okay to raise the required minimum.

I'm not talking about dropping EAPI 0/1/etc support altogether, either from
the tree or from PMs.

> I think he means neither. We should no longer tolerate pre-EAPI2 ebuilds being 
> added to the tree and should work on migrating all "old" ebuilds as the need 
> arises.

No, that's a different discussion, though one that should also be had.
Personally I only bump the EAPI when I need to, but I wouldn't argue against
a policy that new ebuilds (bumps or new packages) should use EAPI 'x'.


-- 
fonts,                             Character is what you are in the dark.
gcc-porting,
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662