| 1 |
On Sunday 07 November 2004 22:51, Andres Loeh wrote: |
| 2 |
> You're right, they should be compatible with all ebuilds in the |
| 3 |
> current portage tree. But if I understand things right, they in fact |
| 4 |
> have to be backwards compatible with all ebuilds that ever have been |
| 5 |
> in the portage tree for eternity. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
>.. |
| 8 |
> While this is usually unlikely to cause major breakage, it's still |
| 9 |
> an annoyance. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That's right, but it has nothing to do with versioning. Eclasses could never |
| 12 |
be deprecated and removed, because you still can't know, if there's a user |
| 13 |
having installed an ebuild using a X years old eclass. See #46223. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Carsten |
Archives