| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:53:15PM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote |
| 2 |
> From time to time the topic of deprecating EAPIs comes up and usually |
| 3 |
> one suggestion is to keep 0 and start with converting EAPI 1 ebuilds. |
| 4 |
> Then someone comes along and asks what is the point? Indeed, a fair |
| 5 |
> question. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
It's my understanding that higher EAPI levels include more features. |
| 8 |
How backwards compatable are the EAPI levels? I.e. assume that we take |
| 9 |
an ebuild with EAPI 0, and slap in EAPI=1 (or 2 or 3, etc) at the top, |
| 10 |
without any other changes. Are there any circumstances where the ebuild |
| 11 |
would behave differently and/or break? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The current default, if EAPI is not specified, is EAPI 0. What I'm |
| 14 |
getting at is... can we safely tell portage to assume that all ebuilds |
| 15 |
with no EAPI declaration are EAPI 1 (or 2 or 3, etc)? Or will that |
| 16 |
break some ebuilds? Actually, if only a small percentage of ebuilds |
| 17 |
break, then it might not be too much of an effort to fix that small |
| 18 |
subset. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| 22 |
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications |
Archives