| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Santiago M. Mola wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Mike Auty wrote: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>>> If there's need for a new class of ebuild information (such as a new |
| 9 |
>>> way of categorizing ebuilds by feature), perhaps we should add an ebuild |
| 10 |
>>> features variable specifically for the purpose? |
| 11 |
>> That requires an EAPI bump, which also means that it can't be used |
| 12 |
>> in ebuilds with EAPI 0 or 1. The RESTRICT solution is simpler and we |
| 13 |
>> can use it right now in any ebuild. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I don't think we're in a hurry for this feature, so I don't see the |
| 17 |
> need of using suboptimal hacks in order to avoid an EAPI bump. |
| 18 |
> Furthermore, EAPI 2 is supposed to be done in the near future, right? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Regards, |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I don't view the RESTRICT=live idea as "suboptimal" or "a hack" in |
| 23 |
any way. I see it as a legitimate use of an existing ebuild variable |
| 24 |
that's already used for lots of other legitimate purposes. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Zac |
| 27 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 28 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkiU3toACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOqJQCgp0VTgcLgsyqvTMOl4yAEv+M9 |
| 31 |
Al8AoJlwWW3y3CIy4nlTfvY+QnouVFuQ |
| 32 |
=XMyh |
| 33 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives