| 1 |
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:52:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Alex Alexander wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >> please have a look at the attached patch. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >> -EAPI="1" |
| 8 |
> >> +EAPI="4" |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Shouldn't the ebuild's phase functions be updated from "EAPI 0 style" |
| 11 |
> > to "EAPI 2 style" too? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> If the goal is to get this stable in a week, and bypass the 1 month |
| 14 |
> waiting period, do we really want to change EAPI at this point? From |
| 15 |
> an end-user perspective updating the EAPI on the ebuild provides no |
| 16 |
> benefit. Why not just deal with that in a future revision? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I don't see much value in rewriting the ebuild to use a new EAPI |
| 19 |
> simply because 4 > 1. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
EAPI was bumped so I could use pkg_pretend, please check out my |
| 22 |
(incomplete) patch. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Alex Alexander | wired |
| 26 |
+ Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 27 |
++ www.linuxized.com |
Archives