| 1 |
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:53:15 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ralph Sennhauser <sera@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The EAPI=0 requirement comes from having to provide an update path for |
| 5 |
> systems with a package manager without EAPI support. By now we are |
| 6 |
> talking about really ancient systems and it's questionable if there is |
| 7 |
> any merit in supporting such. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Further the situation is that some of the maintainers of must be EAPI 0 |
| 10 |
> ebuilds already moved on as the majority of users will profit from a |
| 11 |
> bump. As a result the clean upgrade path is already borked and the |
| 12 |
> value of keeping others at EAPI=0 deteriorates further and further. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yeah as soon as python went it was pretty much pointless. I don't see any |
| 15 |
value in forcing system packages to EAPI 0 anymore. Everything you're saying |
| 16 |
makes sense to me at least. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'd argue against deprecating EAPI 0 any time soon though. Killing EAPI 1 |
| 19 |
would be a better idea. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gcc-porting |
| 24 |
toolchain, wxwidgets we were never more here, expanse getting broader |
| 25 |
@ gentoo.org but bigger boats been done by less water |
Archives