From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-catalyst+bounces-2703-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B471381F3
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:18:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 75686E09B5;
	Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:18:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6222E0894
	for <gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:18:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.210] (S010600222de111ff.vc.shawcable.net [96.49.5.156])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: dolsen)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D79C33DDFE;
	Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:18:09 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1366172280.5030.57.camel@big_daddy.dol-sen.ca>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-catalyst] [PATCH 0/2] Blacklisting binary packages
From: Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:18:00 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20130416225317.GD13055@odin.tremily.us>
References: <20130309121023.GE26574@odin.tremily.us>
	 <cover.1366137972.git.wking@tremily.us>
	 <CAEdQ38GY=oiWLeah4h=4x45LH73qUZeT7q6N6RfuG2iVRh7BUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20130416205942.GB13055@odin.tremily.us> <516DD074.3090906@gentoo.org>
	 <20130416225317.GD13055@odin.tremily.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.3 
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-catalyst+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-catalyst+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-catalyst+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-catalyst.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 7e1c169f-1c3b-4481-a8bc-bb81e1675ec8
X-Archives-Hash: c992778044691626cf5df562b7297013

On Tue, 2013-04-16 at 18:53 -0400, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 03:28:04PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > If you can't get the people maintaining the ebuilds in gentoo-x86 to
> > cooperate with migration to EAPI 5, then I think your best option is
> > to start an eapi-5 overlay which contains EAPI 5 ports of those
> > ebuilds.
> 
> Good idea.  I'll look into that after I hit a wall on sub-slotting
> udev [1].
> 
> Cheers,
> Trevor
> 
> [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=466162
> 

I think it should be the other way around.

If they still insist them needing to be EAPI=0 for upgrade capability
for old systems.  Then the EAPI=0 ebuilds should be put in a
Legacy-upgrade overlay.

If udev is troublesome, then try eudev.  You might even be able to get
the devs working on it to make it EAPI 5.