| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Steve Long wrote: |
| 5 |
> Zac Medico wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>>> Plus, once we have this, it looks to me that nobody has to wait for |
| 8 |
>>> EAPI=1 in order to use whatever portage feature that's needed by an |
| 9 |
>>> ebuild. So we can all stop complaining about not having EAPI=1 in the |
| 10 |
>>> form we wanted or at all, and get back to writing ebuilds. |
| 11 |
>> For metadata syntax changes, such as IUSE defaults, a simple portage |
| 12 |
>> dependency won't work. In that case EAPI is needed in order to |
| 13 |
>> prevent older versions of portage from interpreting new ebuilds in |
| 14 |
>> ways that are not intended (leading to unpredictable results). |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
> Is there a cut-off for portage atm wrt versions you do not support? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I'm wondering at what point you can say we don't support less than 2.1.2. It |
| 19 |
> seems odd that a distro which operates like Gentoo would not cut off |
| 20 |
> support for old versions in line with the rest of the tree, when binary |
| 21 |
> ones do (which is why ubuntu LTS was attractive.) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
We don't introduce incompatible changes into the tree until the |
| 24 |
required features have been available in the in a stable version of |
| 25 |
portage for at least 1 year. The purpose of EAPI is to minimize the |
| 26 |
impact of incompatible changes so that we can start using new |
| 27 |
extensions as soon as possible. See |
| 28 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~genone/docs/treedeps.txt for more ideas |
| 29 |
(Marius already mentioned this earlier in the thread). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Zac |
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iD8DBQFHDxnT/ejvha5XGaMRAuGxAJ9sRww2ryQZEuBC2Lo958Q7uOlLQwCdFI4d |
| 36 |
MyrGAZQkb+2T4FdrTksakxM= |
| 37 |
=s5uA |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives