| 1 |
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:43:54 -0700 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> [2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/eapi/eapi-2-draft.html |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
By table 6.11, are you implying that you consider the new pkg_ phase |
| 6 |
order to be part of EAPI 2? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Really, Portage needs to revert the order and go back to the way it |
| 9 |
used to be for all EAPIs. The change breaks lots of existing ebuilds |
| 10 |
(you claim you've probably fixed everything in ::gentoo, but you don't |
| 11 |
know that and you've definitely not fixed overlays), including ebuilds |
| 12 |
using a common documented technique recommended by the devmanual. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If you want the new pkg_* ordering to go through at all, it really |
| 15 |
needs a lengthy discussion on its own and it mustn't apply to any |
| 16 |
action that involves any existing EAPI. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'd like the Council to say that for anything involving EAPIs 0, 1 or 2 |
| 19 |
we stick to the pkg_* phase ordering we've used years. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives