List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Friday 21 December 2007 05:25:00 Zhang Le wrote:
> The question is really simple.
> Whether we should have two different place to define EAPI?
We need two places because it wasn't implemented properly in the first place
and we want to retain backwards compatibility for people who use old versions
of portage. The whole point is to keep a sane upgrade path available
indefinitely for people with old versions of portage.
> Proponents are trying to prove that we should at least need it be in file
We need the file name to change because otherwise old versions of portage will
try to source the ebuild when the EAPI is unknown. This either blocks new
useful features that will make old versions of portage fail to source them or
results in more bug reports with zillions of dupes (like the bugs in )
because people with ancient versions of portage feel the need to report bug
reports when portage fails after a sync.
At the very least it means waiting for a year between a release with a version
of portage that supports this and an EAPI that takes advantage of it. So now
that leaves the question whether we want to change the file name once and
hope that we won't need to do it again or whether we want to use the
technically more flexible way where the file name changes whenever a new EAPI
gets agreed upon.
Or alternatively whether we want to limit ourselves by using an inferior
solution that limits or delays progress considerably and results in more bug
reports with zillions of dupes...
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)