| 1 |
On 10/16/2011 12:00 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/15/11 2:42 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 03:54, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> That would be an ok approach from my perspective: We could just change |
| 5 |
>>> line 14 of python.eclass and let package maintainers report breakage as |
| 6 |
>>> they increment EAPI. I am confident that nothing EAPI <= 3 would break. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> Is anyone (especially djc and the python herd members) opposed to this? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Seems fine to me; I can't really think of a practical better way. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Thank you, change committed to CVS then. Hopefully nobody will get upset |
| 13 |
> about this. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I'll wait a few days before I start using EAPI-4 in ebuilds using |
| 16 |
> python.eclass, but I've done local tests and everything works fine (for |
| 17 |
> the ebuild I (co-)maintain). |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Thanks, this is most appericiated. This allowed me to kill EAPI=3 |
| 21 |
support from xfconf.eclass. |
Archives