Re: EAPI definition Was: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

[Santiago M. Mola]

On Dec 28, 2007 1:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:25:13 +0100
> "Santiago M. Mola" <coldwind@g.o> wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 2007 1:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> > <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> > > There's no particular reason that new
> > > version formats can't be introduced in a new EAPI so long as the
> > > version strings don't appear in ebuilds using older EAPIs or in
> > > profiles. Ditto for naming rules.
> >
> > Errr... so should we use new files in profiles for such new formats?
> > (for example, p.masking an ebuild with a new version format).
>
> Possibly. Currently there's simply no way of doing it, nor of using
> non-EAPI-0 features anywhere in profiles (you can't, for example, use
> slot deps in package.mask).
>

It'd be nice to agree a new profile format before accepting version
format changes.

In the case of slot deps, it'd be desirable to use them in
package.mask, just desirable. But with version format changes we're
introducing ebuilds which can't be handled in package.mask, that's a
great loss of functionality.

GLEPs 54 and 55 could wait until we have figured out how to apply them
properly and without loss of current functionality.

--
Santiago M. Mola
Jabber ID: cooldwind@×××××.com
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list