| 1 |
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:17:54 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:03:49AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:57:07 -0800 Brian Harring |
| 5 |
| > <ferringb@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
| > | Not saying it's a great idea, but EAPI exists to provide |
| 7 |
| > | immediate transition to incompatible changes instead of the usual |
| 8 |
| > | "work out a semi backwards compatible way, don't use it for 6 |
| 9 |
| > | months, then deal with the bugs". |
| 10 |
| > |
| 11 |
| > Addition of any new dependency filtering criterion is a backwards |
| 12 |
| > incompatible change anyway. If you add, say, [fish:trout] and older |
| 13 |
| > versions of Portage don't recognise [fish:], there's no way for said |
| 14 |
| > older Portage versions to know what to do. Being able to parse |
| 15 |
| > additional DEPEND constructs is not sufficient. |
| 16 |
| |
| 17 |
| Guessing you're missing how EAPI works. The scenario you're pointing |
| 18 |
| at isn't an issue for EAPI aware portage versions. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Nooo! That's exactly the point I was making. Carsten is assuming that |
| 21 |
by using [slot:bar] syntax, no backwards incompatibility will be |
| 22 |
introduced by adding a new [fish:] key. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) |
| 26 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 27 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives