| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 20/09/12 03:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:22:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius |
| 6 |
> <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 20/09/12 02:24 |
| 8 |
>> PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 9 |
>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius |
| 10 |
>>> <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 11 |
>>>> I'm biased, so to me just auditing what portage does would |
| 12 |
>>>> be good enough. :D |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> You also need to audit what Portage did since EAPI 0 was |
| 15 |
>>> introduced. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> No, I don't think so. What portage does *now* is the important |
| 18 |
>> thing for EAPI={0,1,2,3,4,5}, not what it has done over the |
| 19 |
>> course of history. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> That would defeat the whole point of having stable EAPIs. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I don't expect we would be modifying older EAPIs , any usage of IUSE |
| 25 |
etc within phase functions for those EAPIs would remain undefined imo; |
| 26 |
the audit is just to determine what portage (optionally other PMs) |
| 27 |
actually do now, to see what can be relied upon so usage of IUSE etc |
| 28 |
within phase functions in EAPI6 (or an updated EAPI5, maybe) can be |
| 29 |
explicitly stated, without requiring a PM implementation change. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlBbctIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDKlgD8CYgvFQnuB53qlm8rtbfEK1BL |
| 37 |
j3ccHdEFlAHmbloAdSIA/jr7eGR2xhcvl84lEwdLNWMTBr+I5itWBROGV0RTtH33 |
| 38 |
=1lyp |
| 39 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives