| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:09:43 -0700 |
| 6 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> In order to allow mixed EAPIs in the profiles, and to avoid having |
| 8 |
>> to configure the EAPI in every single layer, each directory of the |
| 9 |
>> profile stack should be able to either override or inherit the EAPI |
| 10 |
>> value that may have been defined in a previous layer of the profile |
| 11 |
>> stack. If no EAPI has been previously defined then it can be assumed |
| 12 |
>> to be 0. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> That gets really confusing. Easier to just have an eapi file in every |
| 15 |
> directory. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think you're right. I don't see any really compelling need for |
| 18 |
inheritance or override behavior here. If the file is missing from a |
| 19 |
particular layer then we can simply assume that the layer's EAPI is 0. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Are we going to stick a file directly under profiles/ too? Some things |
| 22 |
> in there are EAPI dependent... It'd have to stay at 0 for quite a long |
| 23 |
> time, of course. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Sure, that seems reasonable. That will allow us to eventually bump |
| 26 |
the EAPI for the package.mask and info_pkgs files (those seem to be |
| 27 |
the only ones that currently contain dependency atoms). |
| 28 |
- -- |
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
Zac |
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkjoGNUACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOQhACfVK+pE9hPkDMUV/EOu26gB7Zn |
| 35 |
UjAAoJwT0L9PneRG4UvwWj2y5n18TV6c |
| 36 |
=FlAq |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives