| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 07/09/12 12:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300 Alexis Ballier |
| 6 |
> <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach |
| 9 |
>> consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get |
| 10 |
>> people used to it could be to have two parallel EAPIs, like 6 and |
| 11 |
>> 6-dependencies, where the former will keep the old style and the |
| 12 |
>> latter use DEPENDENCIES. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> With eclasses supporting both of them? That's more than crazy. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
By the time EAPI=6* would happen we should have a git tree so we'd |
| 18 |
just fork the tree for EAPI=6-dependencies. :) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
A change like this would *NEED* a long-term test phase with a lot of |
| 21 |
developer participation, so if we were to consider it we'd need to |
| 22 |
fork the tree and implement/maintain it in parallel to main tree |
| 23 |
maintenance, imo. A translation script could probably also be used to |
| 24 |
convert *DEPEND into DEPENDENCIES automatically for any packages that |
| 25 |
dev's aren't manually managing... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
...But I digress; we're nowhere near doing this yet. |
| 28 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlBKHK8ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPANNgEAg2K70CzsDPRF7MhBPRoSPtHm |
| 32 |
ngLhrWQKqQ7+A74BTJ4BAKxDyUFnAD4ikYrGvo51Ez1FWcGXntQqyiPc/W+491l7 |
| 33 |
=8+LW |
| 34 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives