| 1 |
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:26:27 +0100 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager has |
| 5 |
> > to export to an ebuild/eclass. That includes syntax and semantics |
| 6 |
> > of exported and expected functions and variables (IOW the content |
| 7 |
> > of ebuilds/eclasses), but does not contain naming and versioning |
| 8 |
> > rules (as those impact cross-package relationships). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This restricted definition is ok for everybody? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The restricted definition is certainly OK, but I'm not convinced that |
| 13 |
the restriction is necessary. There's no particular reason that new |
| 14 |
version formats can't be introduced in a new EAPI so long as the |
| 15 |
version strings don't appear in ebuilds using older EAPIs or in |
| 16 |
profiles. Ditto for naming rules. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives