| 1 |
On 10/18/2012 09:09 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> Anyways, we're seriously getting off topic here. I don't think anyone |
| 3 |
> objected to removing the EAPI 0 requirement for system packages (and in |
| 4 |
> reality no one follows it anyways. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
An EAPI 0 requirement for system packages is just silly these days. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Even portage is EAPI 3). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
For the recored, stable portage is EAPI 2, and there wasn't much choice |
| 11 |
in the matter since portage depends on python-2.6 which uses EAPI 2 (and |
| 12 |
we don't want EAPI 0 or 1 package managers pulling in a portage which |
| 13 |
depends on a python with an unsupported EAPI). |
| 14 |
-- |
| 15 |
Thanks, |
| 16 |
Zac |
Archives