1 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> Plus, once we have this, it looks to me that nobody has to wait for |
4 |
>> EAPI=1 in order to use whatever portage feature that's needed by an |
5 |
>> ebuild. So we can all stop complaining about not having EAPI=1 in the |
6 |
>> form we wanted or at all, and get back to writing ebuilds. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> For metadata syntax changes, such as IUSE defaults, a simple portage |
9 |
> dependency won't work. In that case EAPI is needed in order to |
10 |
> prevent older versions of portage from interpreting new ebuilds in |
11 |
> ways that are not intended (leading to unpredictable results). |
12 |
> |
13 |
Is there a cut-off for portage atm wrt versions you do not support? |
14 |
|
15 |
I'm wondering at what point you can say we don't support less than 2.1.2. It |
16 |
seems odd that a distro which operates like Gentoo would not cut off |
17 |
support for old versions in line with the rest of the tree, when binary |
18 |
ones do (which is why ubuntu LTS was attractive.) |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |