| 1 |
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Why not just bump the filename suffix when it is required to support a |
| 3 |
> new EAPI that breaks the sourcing rules of previous EAPIs? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Or will backwards-incompatible changes be happening so frequently that |
| 6 |
> the package suffix will have to change for every EAPI bump anyway, |
| 7 |
> which would make this proposal equivalent to GLEP55? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
That works. Although, we'd have to keep track of two parameters when |
| 10 |
setting our EAPI. One being the EAPI itself and the suffix needed for |
| 11 |
that EAPI. So this doesn't seem to make the problem simpler. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Regards, |
| 14 |
-- |
| 15 |
Santiago M. Mola |
| 16 |
Jabber ID: cooldwind@×××××.com |
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives