| 1 |
On 16:11 Thu 22 Jan , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:10:29 -0600 |
| 3 |
> Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I think the spec should just be upgraded because it isn't exactly |
| 5 |
> > obvious to the casual dev what is a 3.0 feature vs 3.1, etc. We |
| 6 |
> > already have 3.1 features in the tree, I'm not sure where the red |
| 7 |
> > tape is here. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The problem is, if the tree uses 3.1 and you don't have 3.1, it's a |
| 10 |
> massive pain in the ass to upgrade. We waited a loooong time between |
| 11 |
> 3.0 going stable and allowing it in the tree because of that. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Ideally we'd say "no using 3.1 features unless EAPI=3", but that would |
| 14 |
> be messy with eclasses even if developers did know that += is a 3.1 |
| 15 |
> feature... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Can this be fixed by adding bash dependencies to things using new |
| 18 |
features? As long as we keep them out of the build path of bash, things |
| 19 |
ought to work. Then we could add a repoman check for new features, if we |
| 20 |
wanted. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Thanks, |
| 24 |
Donnie |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 27 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 28 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
Archives