1 |
El lun, 19-12-2011 a las 09:31 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: |
2 |
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:07:45 +0100 |
3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > El dom, 18-12-2011 a las 23:02 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: |
6 |
> > [...] |
7 |
> > > > Q6: Why can't the dodoc/dohtml path be changed before EAPI-5? |
8 |
> > > > A6: Because the path where dodoc and dohtml install files is part |
9 |
> > > > of the PMS. Portage can't just change it on its own. A possible |
10 |
> > > > workaround for current EAPIs is adding new-style dodoc/dohtml |
11 |
> > > > analogues to an eclass. |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > I think some of devs agree we should be allowed to fix past mistakes |
14 |
> > > without waiting another 20 years till the tree is migrated to a new |
15 |
> > > EAPI... |
16 |
> > > |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > Maybe this situation could be improved if there was a policy forcing |
19 |
> > us to try to use latest EAPI when possible for any package update, |
20 |
> > that way we would move faster to latest eapi and even deprecate older |
21 |
> > eapis easily |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Still unlikely. A bunch of old eclasses will force ebuilds to be EAPI 0 |
24 |
> or so. |
25 |
> |
26 |
|
27 |
Well, I was meaning eapis different than 0, I know it will need to be |
28 |
kept more time due backwards compatibility ;) |
29 |
|
30 |
Regarding other eapis, how many eclasses are still requiring old eapis? |
31 |
I think games.eclass was one of them, but haven't reviewed others :S |