1 |
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:51:27 +0100 Simon Stelling <blubb@g.o> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> > I'd like it spelt out please. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Here we go: |
7 |
> |
8 |
> > So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects |
9 |
> > like Portage USE deps, [snip] |
10 |
> |
11 |
> USE deps can't be used anyway in EAPI=0 because it would break |
12 |
> current versions of portage. So we need EAPI=1, but you can't say |
13 |
> putting together version 2 of a spec before version 1 was writte is |
14 |
> sane. So we need the EAPI=0 spec. Makes it pretty easy to figure out |
15 |
> why this spec is fairly important. |
16 |
|
17 |
I disagree. It's very easy and probably the best way of doing things to |
18 |
say "If ebuilds want to use slot deps, use deps or blah, they set |
19 |
EAPI=1. Otherwise, continue as normal.". So far as I'm aware, |
20 |
everything currently planned for EAPI 1 is an extension, not a change |
21 |
in behaviour. |
22 |
|
23 |
-- |
24 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
25 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
26 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
27 |
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |