| 1 |
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 15:23:58 +0200 |
| 2 |
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> To be honest I personally consider that ("eapis are not ordered") an |
| 4 |
> abomination, and my personal wish would be to keep them large-scale |
| 5 |
> ordered with (among one major version) unordered sub-versions |
| 6 |
> ("4-xxx") if needed. or at least keep all PMS-approved eapis ordered. |
| 7 |
> "Experimental eapis for use in third party software" should not |
| 8 |
> require any mentioning in pms anyway. :] |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I think you're missing the point of that declaration... It's fine for |
| 11 |
you to think of EAPI 4 as being newer than EAPI 3. It's not fine for |
| 12 |
you to consider EAPI 4 to be a superset of EAPI 3, and it's not fine to |
| 13 |
try using comparisons other than string equality (with the annoying |
| 14 |
special case for "" being "0") on an EAPI value. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives