1 |
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
3 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On 07/09/12 12:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
6 |
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300 Alexis Ballier |
7 |
>> <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>>> I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach |
10 |
>>> consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get |
11 |
>>> people used to it could be to have two parallel EAPIs, like 6 and |
12 |
>>> 6-dependencies, where the former will keep the old style and the |
13 |
>>> latter use DEPENDENCIES. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> With eclasses supporting both of them? That's more than crazy. |
16 |
>> |
17 |
> |
18 |
> By the time EAPI=6* would happen we should have a git tree so we'd |
19 |
> just fork the tree for EAPI=6-dependencies. :) |
20 |
> |
21 |
> A change like this would *NEED* a long-term test phase with a lot of |
22 |
> developer participation, so if we were to consider it we'd need to |
23 |
> fork the tree and implement/maintain it in parallel to main tree |
24 |
> maintenance, imo. A translation script could probably also be used to |
25 |
> convert *DEPEND into DEPENDENCIES automatically for any packages that |
26 |
> dev's aren't manually managing... |
27 |
> |
28 |
> ...But I digress; we're nowhere near doing this yet. |
29 |
|
30 |
An intermediate form of that might be useful for auditing the tree and |
31 |
finding packages which aren't expressing, e.g. RDEPENDS, but probably |
32 |
should. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
:wq |