| 1 |
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:50:22 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Piotr Jaroszyński <peper@g.o> posted |
| 4 |
> 200712182111.20754.peper@g.o, excerpted below, on Tue, 18 Dec |
| 5 |
> 2007 21:11:20 +0100: |
| 6 |
> > On Tuesday 18 of December 2007 20:45:44 Duncan wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> How about when we have a dozen or so EAPIs active, several of which |
| 8 |
> >> apply to a specific ebuild? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Where is this idea of mixing EAPIs coming from? It really doesn't |
| 11 |
> > make much sense. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> If EAPI is defined as a particular set of features and rules as |
| 14 |
> grouped together under a specific EAPI label (Ciaran's general |
| 15 |
> definition), and is specifically not ordered, as is the case, thus |
| 16 |
> allowing, potentially, multiple EAPIs to evolve in parallel |
| 17 |
> (Grobian's message), as the upthread argues is possible, even |
| 18 |
> likely... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
But you can't mix features arbitrarily. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> And if a particular ebuild uses features from a non-conflicting |
| 23 |
> super-set of several such EAPIs (Ulrich's message) ... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Then there should be an EAPI defined that permits all of those features. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Functionality would only be removed from EAPIs for specific reasons: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
* Conflicts with new features (think *DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES). In which |
| 30 |
case, you can't mix features between EAPIs anyway. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
* Deprecating old nasty features. In which case, you shouldn't be |
| 33 |
using said features anyway. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
* Massively different EAPIs. In which case you reaaaallly can't mix |
| 36 |
EAPIs. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives