| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> One thing I'll note is that the .ebuild-$EAPI approach isn't the end |
| 3 |
> all fix to versioning extensions that y'all represent it as. |
| 4 |
> Essentially, what .ebuild-$EAPI allows is additions to version |
| 5 |
> comparison rules, no subtractions. Each new $EAPI *must* be a |
| 6 |
> superset of previous $EAPIs. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Uhh... no. Just like how older package managers which don't understand |
| 9 |
how to read the EAPI from a filename suffix would basically ignore the |
| 10 |
new ebuilds, any package manager that can, but doesn't recognize the |
| 11 |
eapi of the new one, will just ignore it. It won't ever try to figure |
| 12 |
out its version or anything, it'll just do nothing. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Also, there is absolutely no reason for all future EAPIs to be a |
| 15 |
superset of old eapis. While paludis (and presumably pkgcore and |
| 16 |
portage, I'm not as familiar with their code) has implemented EAPI=1 as |
| 17 |
a few additions to EAPI=0, there is no reason that gentoo might not |
| 18 |
decide to have EAPI=9000 some day, complete with artificial intelligence |
| 19 |
that completely obsoletes USE flags, or some such thing (it's late, I |
| 20 |
know the analogy sucks). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Mike Kelly |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives