| 1 |
Am 30.06.2011 12:31, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: |
| 2 |
> Should we start pushing for a reasonably quick EAPI 5? I'd see it as |
| 3 |
> having: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> * The stuff that was left out of EAPI 3/4, which is to say :=/:* |
| 6 |
> dependencies, and the IUSE_IMPLICIT stuff (especially since right |
| 7 |
> now people are breaking the rules and implicitly using 'prefix' when |
| 8 |
> they shouldn't, and the rules for (+) and (-) are largely useless |
| 9 |
> without the stricter control). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
You shouldn't insist on these two as long as there is no portage |
| 12 |
implementation. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Are people (ebuild devs) really aware what introducing slot operator |
| 15 |
deps would mean? |
| 16 |
To make any use of them portage would have to stop updating installed |
| 17 |
packages' metadata with ebuild metadata, which in turn means that |
| 18 |
updating deps without revbump is going to cause problems for users. |
| 19 |
I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it might not be what people |
| 20 |
want. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Could you please give a summary (or point me to one) of the discussion |
| 23 |
about :=/:*? |
| 24 |
Specifically, why do we need two of them instead of declaring one of |
| 25 |
them the default. And if we want both, what does it mean to not specify |
| 26 |
one of them? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> * Cleaning up some deprecated stuff (see recent bugs). |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> * A replacement for versionator, since apparently versionator is still |
| 32 |
> using (a subset of) the ooooold version rules. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
++ |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> I think there was something else too, but I forget what... |
| 38 |
> |
Archives