| 1 |
Kindly respond to the rest of the email first of all... |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 06:22:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:16:21 -0700 |
| 5 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Also, there is absolutely no reason for all future EAPIs to be a |
| 7 |
> > > superset of old eapis. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > .ebuild-$EAPI-n requires all *versioning rules* to be a superset of |
| 10 |
> > $EAPI=(n-1); if in doubt, re-read my example above. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> No it doesn't. It requires that versions be mappable to a single, |
| 13 |
> enumerable master version format. Big difference. You could quite |
| 14 |
> happily add -scm and remove _p in future EAPIs, for example. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Lay out how .006/.6 would work properly *per* eapi. As I clarified in |
| 17 |
my last email, the master would vary dependant on the eapi- which |
| 18 |
isn't valid unless you're retroactively overriding the versioning |
| 19 |
rules of an eapi. |
| 20 |
~harring |
Archives