El lun, 19-12-2011 a las 09:31 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:07:45 +0100
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
> 
> > El dom, 18-12-2011 a las 23:02 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
> > [...]
> > > > Q6: Why can't the dodoc/dohtml path be changed before EAPI-5?
> > > > A6: Because the path where dodoc and dohtml install files is part
> > > > of the PMS. Portage can't just change it on its own. A possible
> > > > workaround for current EAPIs is adding new-style dodoc/dohtml
> > > > analogues to an eclass.
> > > 
> > > I think some of devs agree we should be allowed to fix past mistakes
> > > without waiting another 20 years till the tree is migrated to a new
> > > EAPI...
> > > 
> > 
> > Maybe this situation could be improved if there was a policy forcing
> > us to try to use latest EAPI when possible for any package update,
> > that way we would move faster to latest eapi and even deprecate older
> > eapis easily
> 
> Still unlikely. A bunch of old eclasses will force ebuilds to be EAPI 0
> or so.
> 

Well, I was meaning eapis different than 0, I know it will need to be
kept more time due backwards compatibility ;)

Regarding other eapis, how many eclasses are still requiring old eapis?
I think games.eclass was one of them, but haven't reviewed others :S