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