1 |
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 06:00:32 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
> > I disagree. It's very easy and probably the best way of doing |
4 |
> > things to say "If ebuilds want to use slot deps, use deps or blah, |
5 |
> > they set EAPI=1. Otherwise, continue as normal.". So far as I'm |
6 |
> > aware, everything currently planned for EAPI 1 is an extension, not |
7 |
> > a change in behaviour. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Fair bit more was on the table as potentials for EAPI1; breaking |
10 |
> src_compile into src_configure/src_compile, glep33 (eclass2 |
11 |
> seperation), misc reductions of env vars and tightening of various |
12 |
> metadata (RESTRICT for example, formally forbiding the no* form). |
13 |
|
14 |
Which isn't a problem, so long as these are all things that can be |
15 |
introduced pretty much straight away. If any of them aren't ready to |
16 |
go, they'd be better held off to EAPI-2. After all, people seem to want |
17 |
to be allowed to use :slot deps right now... |
18 |
|
19 |
None of these are anything that would end up sounding bad if worded as |
20 |
"as per existing practice, except ...". |
21 |
|
22 |
-- |
23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
24 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
25 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
26 |
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |