Mike Kelly wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
>> One thing I'll note is that the .ebuild-$EAPI approach isn't the end 
>> all fix to versioning extensions that y'all represent it as.  
>> Essentially, what .ebuild-$EAPI allows is additions to version 
>> comparison rules, no subtractions.  Each new $EAPI *must* be a 
>> superset of previous $EAPIs.
> 
> Uhh... no. Just like how older package managers which don't understand 
> how to read the EAPI from a filename suffix would basically ignore the 
> new ebuilds, any package manager that can, but doesn't recognize the 
> eapi of the new one, will just ignore it. It won't ever try to figure 
> out its version or anything, it'll just do nothing.
> 
> Also, there is absolutely no reason for all future EAPIs to be a 
> superset of old eapis. While paludis (and presumably pkgcore and 
> portage, I'm not as familiar with their code) has implemented EAPI=1 as 
> a few additions to EAPI=0, there is no reason that gentoo might not 
> decide to have EAPI=9000 some day, complete with artificial intelligence 
> that completely obsoletes USE flags, or some such thing (it's late, I 
> know the analogy sucks).
> 

Assuming we won't move from flat file to db

lu - thinking of a darker future.


-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list