| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:45:37 +0200 |
| 4 |
> Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> And why don't we change the versioning of the EAPI to a "X.Y" scheme |
| 6 |
>> and demand that changes in the minor version must not break sourcing |
| 7 |
>> of the ebuild with older package managers and that major versions do. |
| 8 |
>> Major version numbers are written in the postfix, while minor version |
| 9 |
>> numbers are written in the ebuild itself as EAPI_MINOR="1". So, the |
| 10 |
>> current EAPI 1 would then be in fact "0.1". |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> No point. A 0 package manager still couldn't use a 0.1 ebuild. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
That's true, it has at least to be aware the there's an EAPI. |
| 15 |
But how does such a package manager handle .ebuild-0 files? Ignore them? |
| 16 |
Failing because of unknown files in a package-dir? |
| 17 |
Should we care about package managers not being aware of the existence of |
| 18 |
EAPI's? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The advantage of the above would be that we could gradually implement new |
| 21 |
(not-breaking-sourcing) features incrementing the minor version. Avoiding |
| 22 |
big chunks of changes (which usually means greater risk). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives