| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:35:25 -0700 |
| 4 |
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Did anyone already propose specifying this in metadata.xml? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Yup. That's a no-go, since metadata.xml is quite rightly treated as |
| 8 |
> being "not suitable for anything the package manager really needs". |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It also moves the EAPI definition even further away from the ebuild, |
| 11 |
> which makes it even harder to work with. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> And, of course, it's not backwards compatible, so it'd still need a |
| 14 |
> file extension change. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Another ugly solution: Having the EAPI on a per-package (like |
| 18 |
$portagedir/cat/package-1) or per-tree basis ($portagedir/profiles/eapi) |
| 19 |
and start providing our tree as overlays of more than one tree |
| 20 |
(will end up in a mess of dependencies, but it would still be nice to |
| 21 |
specify the EAPI for a complete overlay instead of having the name all the |
| 22 |
ebuilds like .eapi-X :-). |
| 23 |
In addition: it wouldn't be possible to identify the EAPI of an ebuild by |
| 24 |
just looking at it... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives