| 1 |
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:43:06 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> >> Did I get it right, you are thinking about a special EAPI only for |
| 7 |
> >> user patches? I'd say that the feature is not important enough to |
| 8 |
> >> justify that. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > Didn't we have a few other cheap things lined up? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Yes we do, and IMHO it would make much more sense if EAPI 5 would |
| 13 |
> include them. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> (And of course, there are still the two features that were omitted |
| 16 |
> from EAPI 4, namely slot-operator-deps and profile-iuse-injection.) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Of course, if we take the 'quick EAPI 5 route', it won't include |
| 19 |
anything useful. In the meantime, do we have a complete list of |
| 20 |
candidates for EAPI 5? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Best regards, |
| 24 |
Michał Górny |
Archives