| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:22:43 -0400
|
| 5 |
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 7 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 8 |
> On 20/09/12 02:24 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 be |
| 12 |
> >> 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 thing |
| 18 |
> for EAPI={0,1,2,3,4,5}, not what it has done over the course of |
| 19 |
> history. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That would defeat the whole point of having stable EAPIs.
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
- --
|
| 24 |
Ciaran McCreesh
|
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iEYEARECAAYFAlBbbwMACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHgVACfa/bWAigEnxFiVNU7aJDipgCp
|
| 29 |
KK0AnAqHNSqKvJDIPglUFvF3WOu64fWj
|
| 30 |
=nptC
|
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives