1 |
Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> I am aware of the fact that we are late for EAPI 3 (partly because I |
4 |
> didn't expect that the change would require an EAPI bump). Question to |
5 |
> the council: is it still possible to include this? Considering that |
6 |
> there is a lot of breakage, as well as strange workarounds related to |
7 |
> the current inconsistent behaviour of package managers. |
8 |
> |
9 |
|
10 |
For most features the block is the need for Portage to implement the |
11 |
feature. If I read the thread correctly, Portage already implements what |
12 |
is wanted here so it's just a matter of agreeing on the specification. I |
13 |
don't see any reason not to have something in EAPI 3 if it's specified |
14 |
and implemented in the same time frame as the main driving features of |
15 |
EAPI 3. |
16 |
|
17 |
Regards, |
18 |
Petteri |