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 |
> |