| 1 |
Am Freitag, 6. April 2007 00:41 schrieb Vlastimil Babka: |
| 2 |
> Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>> Breaking EAPI=0 via pushing slot deps in isn't much of an option |
| 4 |
> >>> in my opinion; usual "needs to have been on release media for at |
| 5 |
> >>> least 6 |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> We can push for an EAPI=1 == (EAPI=0 + slot deps)... |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Can, yep, although that was originally blocked by "EAPI=0 must be |
| 10 |
> > defined", which folks seem to have backed off on. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Not sure if slot deps themselves could even replace version ranges |
| 13 |
> hacks without also solving bug 4315 (native version ranges) in all |
| 14 |
> cases. IMHO it should be possible at least to specify slot+usual |
| 15 |
> version limit, to make it worth EAPI bump. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Please have a look at the slot dep format proposal. AFAIK none of the |
| 18 |
P{aludis,kgcore,ortage} devs disagreed on that. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> > One issue with adding EAPI=1 having just slot deps is that it skips |
| 21 |
> > out on some long term changes intended- default src_install for |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> So what, longer term changes could wait for EAPI=2. Why not make |
| 24 |
> experience with EAPI bumping with something smaller for a start, |
| 25 |
> instead of trying to make one big bump that will bring all changes we |
| 26 |
> can think of now, but will be implemented only in 2010... |
| 27 |
I agree fully. Nobody said we can't finetune the EAPI steps/bumps. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Now it may look like I contradict myself saying to bump ASAP but not |
| 30 |
> without solving bug 4315 first. But I see slot deps without limits |
| 31 |
> only half of a feature. |
| 32 |
Nobody but talked about that. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Danny |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> |
| 37 |
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives