1 |
Am Samstag 23 Juni 2012, 22:17:51 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: |
2 |
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:09:31 +0200 |
3 |
> |
4 |
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > It is certainly possible refine this more. Allowing only EAPI=5 |
6 |
> > ebuilds in package.use.stable.*, and have the files only take effect |
7 |
> > there, comes to my mind. However I doubt if these restrictions are |
8 |
> > really necessary and if a EAPI dependence at this place in the |
9 |
> > profile makes actually sense. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> The way we usually word such things is to have a table of EAPIs where |
12 |
> support is required if the package mangler accepts indicated EAPIs. Then |
13 |
> it's an error for ebuilds to rely upon support if they don't use one of |
14 |
> those EAPIs. This gets you out of the profile EAPI requirement. |
15 |
|
16 |
OK, additional patch (on top of the previous one) is included. It states that |
17 |
atoms inside package.use.stable.mask etc *must* resolve only to EAPI 5 |
18 |
ebuilds. |
19 |
|
20 |
I'm not fully convinced yet that this restriction is really necessary, but |
21 |
it's imho a compromise. |
22 |
|
23 |
Cheers, |
24 |
Andreas |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
|
28 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
29 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
30 |
dilfridge@g.o |
31 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |