| 1 |
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > >> Either way, EAPI=1 *should* have a bit more then just slot deps in |
| 6 |
> > >> my opinion; very least it needs discussion to discern what folks |
| 7 |
> > >> want. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > Well, EAPI 1 needs to be delivered quickly... |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Why exactly does EAPI=1 need to be rushed? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Because the tree needed the functionality in question several years ago. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> > I thought the whole point of 0 was allowing a base, so that new stuff |
| 16 |
> > could be developed while guaranteeing certain behaviour. What's the |
| 17 |
> > hurry? It's not like there are systems b0rking or anything because |
| 18 |
> > EAPI=1 isn't around; |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not |
| 21 |
> several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into a |
| 22 |
> later EAPI. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
this is really up to the portage team to drive |
| 25 |
-mike |
Archives