| 1 |
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:46:06 +0100 |
| 2 |
Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> The issue is with comparison rules. For the current use case that's |
| 4 |
> not an issue as it's simply a superset, so we could just use the new |
| 5 |
> rules for everything. But if the rules are changed in an incompatible |
| 6 |
> way, which rules would be used to compare version(EAPI_X) with |
| 7 |
> version(EAPI_Y)? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
You pretty much have to have a way of mapping an EAPI version onto an |
| 10 |
absolute version if you want to handle it sanely. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > Ditto for naming rules. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Those are even more of an issue, as they apply before we know the |
| 15 |
> eventual EAPI (need to access the category/package directory before |
| 16 |
> you can parse the ebuild filename) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Mmm, no. You have some concept of a superset of all supported naming |
| 19 |
rules, then refine once you've extracted the EAPI. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives