| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:23:08 +0800 |
| 3 |
> Zhang Le <r0bertz@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I really don't see the necessity to have so many EAPI's |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> A new EAPI is needed for new features, so new EAPIs will be needed in |
| 8 |
> the future. Equally, migrating the whole tree at once to newer EAPIs is |
| 9 |
> a) a lot of unnecessary work, and b) unnecessarily irritating to people |
| 10 |
> using older package managers. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I think we should first decide on how EAPI works. |
| 13 |
This is also a prerequisite for this glep to be further discussed. |
| 14 |
Just because we need a new feature, then we produce a new EAPI? |
| 15 |
I think that is not feasible, and will confuse developers. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> especially PM specific EAPI. We can't have PM specific EAPI, |
| 19 |
>> otherwise we are risking forking/splitting ourself. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Package manager EAPIs don't belong in the main tree, but they have uses |
| 22 |
> outside of it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Then would you please introduce how paludis-1 EAPI differs from official EAPI's? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Zhang Le, Robert |
| 28 |
GPG key ID: 1E4E2973 |
| 29 |
Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1E4E 2973 |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives