1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Lars Wendler wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I don'f feel very well with this idea especially because no matter |
4 |
> how hard I try I don't get comfortable with EAPI-3. No offense to |
5 |
> our prefix guys, you surely did a hell of a good job and EAPI-3 |
6 |
> seems to really get you out of quite some trouble you had with |
7 |
> earlier EAPIs, but... I for myself never tried a prefix installation |
8 |
> and I don't have any intentions to do this in the foreseeable future |
9 |
> so I still prefer EAPI-2 wherever I can simply because EAPI-3 |
10 |
> imposes overhead on my side which I have no real benefit from and I |
11 |
> have no real clue about how to write proper EAPI-3 ebuilds. |
12 |
|
13 |
As long as your ebuild doesn't need any keywords for prefix |
14 |
architectures, nothing forces you to use ED and EROOT variables |
15 |
instead of D and ROOT. |
16 |
|
17 |
In other words, you can simply change the EAPI declaration in an |
18 |
ebuild from 2 to 3 and it will continue to work. |
19 |
|
20 |
Ulrich |