Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:46:18
Message-Id: 20110920114013.5c2b69dc@googlemail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem by Brian Harring
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:28:48 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote:
> Paludis wise, it's eapi2 indirictely due to boost and eselect. > Looking at the eapi depgraph for that, doesn't look particularly > viable for upgrading from a EAPI<2 manager for paludis. I'll leave > it to Ciaran to comment on the feasability of a static rescue > binary (or extremely simplified upgrade pathway).
boost's just for Python bindings, which are optional. The eselect dependency is hard, and can't easily be made optional, so ideally eselect should stick with older EAPIs. Maybe we should stick something in metadata.xml... -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

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

Replies