Matti Bickel wrote:
> And while your proposal sounds more compliant to the DRY principle, i
> would object it on the basis that it makes a single ebuild actually
> harder to understand as you have to read (1) eclasses, (2) -base.ebuild
> and (3) -version.ebuild.

That's quite exactly what I wanted to write - plus this -base.ebuild
thingy would only make sense if we also allow versioning of
-base.ebuilds. And then we're quickly speaking of package-based eclasses
instead of "-base.ebuilds".

If we're speaking of a list of whishes for 2009 - i'd prefer to see
eclass versioning instead of -base.ebuilds ;)

  Tobias