| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> I think it's OK to start using package.use now considering that |
| 7 |
>> package.use has been supported since portage-2.1.2 and that's been |
| 8 |
>> stable since February. There are already a couple of packages using |
| 9 |
>> it in the tree now. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Is it a good idea for those ebuilds that require new features to have |
| 12 |
> a >= dependency on a specific version of portage ? Or not ? Can this |
| 13 |
> help when switching EAPIs ? Or plug the gap while the decision to |
| 14 |
> switch to EAPI=1 is being taken ? Does /me need more coffee or a good |
| 15 |
> clue-batting session ? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Denis. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Adding a dependency on >=sys-apps/portage-2.1.2 is a reasonable idea |
| 20 |
since that does ensure that the package.use is properly accounted |
| 21 |
for. Since EAPI only governs ebuilds and not profiles, you'd have to |
| 22 |
use IUSE defaults to get a similar effect while taking advantage of |
| 23 |
EAPI. The problem with EAPI-1 at the moment is that it's only |
| 24 |
supported by an unstable version of portage, which means that |
| 25 |
repoman users with stable portage will be unable to work with any |
| 26 |
ebuilds that have EAPI=1 defined. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Zac |
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iD8DBQFHDJNZ/ejvha5XGaMRAv0BAJwIxec1FPMJQYjSJeolEyVC4njgfQCeMKb+ |
| 33 |
8YgKitdWk8difKGR4nJkYuo= |
| 34 |
=51KN |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives