On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please consider a new "eapi" profile configuration file that will
> designate the EAPI to which any package atoms within a given layer
> of the profile stack must conform. This will allow package managers
> to bail out with an informative error message if the user
> accidentally selects a profile containing an EAPI that is not
> supported by the currently installed package manager.

Long Long Ago there was a conversation about versioning profiles; is
there some reason why you prefer the eapi method (which arguably has a
smaller scope) over full profile api versioning (PAPI?)

Arguably we could use both in the future as well.

>
> In order to allow mixed EAPIs in the profiles, and to avoid having
> to configure the EAPI in every single layer, each directory of the
> profile stack should be able to either override or inherit the EAPI
> value that may have been defined in a previous layer of the profile
> stack. If no EAPI has been previously defined then it can be assumed
> to be 0.
>
> The format of the configuration file can be very simple, containing
> only the EAPI value and nothing more. For example, a file containing
>  just a single "0" character, followed by a newline, could be
> created at profiles/base/eapi in order to explicitly declare that
> atoms in the base profile conform to EAPI 0. However, this
> particular declaration would be redundant since the base profile
> does not inherit from any other profile and therefore it's EAPI
> would be assumed to be 0 anyway.
>
> Does this seem like a good approach? Are there any suggestions for
> improvements or alternative approaches?

PAPI :)

> - --
> Thanks,
> Zac
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkjmtEYACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNtSQCfXb2OQAYCEAe0Uuuu7Ou+DxyV
> QZsAn0VpUbKqHJP0XRZSg6mhFKeUNXui
> =qR8c
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>