| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:13:34 +0200 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > So you're volunteering to convert the entire tree to the new EAPI |
| 5 |
> > all in one go every two months? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I don't see the need and I won't see the problem given right now what |
| 8 |
> is interesting is the set of improvements that aren't forward |
| 9 |
> incompatible. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It's likely that any future EAPIs won't be forward compatible because: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
* There's a strong desire to make lots of functions stricter. |
| 14 |
* The current *DEPEND syntax will probably be replaced with something |
| 15 |
more expressive. |
| 16 |
* There'll be more phases. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So yes, it's a full tree rewrite if you want to avoid having multiple |
| 19 |
EAPIs in the same tree. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives