| 1 |
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:46:44 +0100 |
| 2 |
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 2007/12/19, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:12:24 +0100 |
| 6 |
> > Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > You're done as long as ebuilds are written in bash. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Not even that. What if people decide that rather than writing |
| 10 |
> > EAPI="blah", "eapi blah" is cleaner? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Yeah, and file names suffixes won't work anymore as soon as it has |
| 13 |
> arbitrarily been decided that prefixes should be used instead, or that |
| 14 |
> EAPI must disappear because using explicit sets of named features is |
| 15 |
> better than using names of some particular sets. That rules only holds |
| 16 |
> as long as they don't change is not an argument, but a truism. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Uh, it works in both those cases. The package manager will simply not |
| 19 |
see the ebuild at all. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Which is pretty much the point... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives