| 1 |
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:46:56PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:51:27 +0100 Simon Stelling <blubb@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > I'd like it spelt out please. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Here we go: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > > So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects |
| 10 |
> > > like Portage USE deps, [snip] |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > USE deps can't be used anyway in EAPI=0 because it would break |
| 13 |
> > current versions of portage. So we need EAPI=1, but you can't say |
| 14 |
> > putting together version 2 of a spec before version 1 was writte is |
| 15 |
> > sane. So we need the EAPI=0 spec. Makes it pretty easy to figure out |
| 16 |
> > why this spec is fairly important. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I disagree. It's very easy and probably the best way of doing things to |
| 19 |
> say "If ebuilds want to use slot deps, use deps or blah, they set |
| 20 |
> EAPI=1. Otherwise, continue as normal.". So far as I'm aware, |
| 21 |
> everything currently planned for EAPI 1 is an extension, not a change |
| 22 |
> in behaviour. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Fair bit more was on the table as potentials for EAPI1; breaking |
| 25 |
src_compile into src_configure/src_compile, glep33 (eclass2 |
| 26 |
seperation), misc reductions of env vars and tightening of various |
| 27 |
metadata (RESTRICT for example, formally forbiding the no* form). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thats off the top of the head, and just the stuff I've had on hold for |
| 30 |
EAPI=1. Would expect user/group management (glep27 off the top of the |
| 31 |
head) would be on the radar also, although thats firmly in pioto's |
| 32 |
court. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Either way, when the angle of "do EAPI=1 while waiting for EAPI=0 to |
| 35 |
be fully defined" was brought up, a vocal subgroup of people initially |
| 36 |
shot it down. |
| 37 |
~harring |
Archives