| 1 |
On 24-10-2009 22:37:30 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> > The suggestion was to just introduce EAPI=3 with these variables, and |
| 3 |
> > making everything which is scheduled for current EAPI=3 just EAPI=4. I |
| 4 |
> > was told we could quite quickly have a Portage in the tree that would |
| 5 |
> > set ED and EROOT for EAPI=3 that way. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Maybe 2+prefix is a more describing name? This would avoid changing what |
| 8 |
> EAPI 3 means. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Naming is up to others, from my point of view. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > Are there any objections to this? If not, I'd like to put this on the |
| 13 |
> > agenda for the next council meeting. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> As the council decided to add new stuff in the last meeting if zac is |
| 16 |
> starting to implement new EAPIs this could go into EAPI 3 too. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Yes, this was implicit, the next EAPI should contain the same support |
| 19 |
too. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 24 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives