Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Deprecate EAPIs 0 and 1?
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 00:29:59
Message-Id: 20101231183403.24f88379@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Deprecate EAPIs 0 and 1? by Ulrich Mueller
1 On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:02:32 +0100
2 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > Opinions?
5
6 I don't mind a warning, but I'll tell you right now there is no way I'm
7 using anything other than EAPI 0 for toolchain packages. Mike might
8 disagree but I don't think anyone feels like rewriting and auditing
9 toolchain.eclass for zero benefit.
10
11 I thought there was a consensus that we wouldn't use anything other than
12 EAPI 0 for @system packages, but it appears python ignored that and others
13 followed suit.
14
15 EAPI 1 I could live without. But I think EAPI 0, being the base on which
16 all other EAPIs are defined, needs to stick around indefinitely.
17
18
19 --
20 fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense
21 toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime
22 @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Deprecate EAPIs 0 and 1? Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o>