| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 5 |
> Zac Medico wrote: |
| 6 |
>> As for using things like IUSE defaults and SLOT dependencies in |
| 7 |
>> ebuilds (both supported by portage-2.1.2), the most backward |
| 8 |
>> compatible approach is to do an EAPI bump. We should probably |
| 9 |
>> include a few other things in the EAPI-1 bump [1] that aren't |
| 10 |
>> implemented yet. We don't have to include everything that's planned, |
| 11 |
>> but it would be good to include at least some of the simplest features. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> SLOT depends are something we could really use right now. What kind of |
| 14 |
> time frame are you thinking of? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Trying to include things that aren't implemented or things that are |
| 17 |
controversial will delay it. It's difficult to make time estimates |
| 18 |
for anything that's not implemented yet. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It's trivial to do the EAPI-1 bump if we only include things that |
| 21 |
are already implemented. I can have a sys-apps/portage release in |
| 22 |
the tree this week with EAPI-1 support if we choose to do that. |
| 23 |
Looking at bug #174380, I'd say that EAPI-1 should certainly include |
| 24 |
#174405, #174410, and #179380 since they're all implemented and |
| 25 |
relatively non-controversial. Anything more than those can lead to |
| 26 |
potential delays. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Zac |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
iD8DBQFHA8VV/ejvha5XGaMRAjVmAKDYi/BX6HU/v8B0Mf8l6qfschmyjgCfbBdq |
| 34 |
cj2yldMRM+saK8KnKKi7UF4= |
| 35 |
=+efu |
| 36 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives