| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:07:52AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Nooo! That's exactly the point I was making. Carsten is assuming that |
| 4 |
> > by using [slot:bar] syntax, no backwards incompatibility will be |
| 5 |
> > introduced by adding a new [fish:] key. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Nooo! ;) I said it would look more consistent, than always adding a new way |
| 8 |
> (§$%&€<> or so) to describe or latest enhanced dependency atom. |
| 9 |
Either way, it's going to require depset extension, and an EAPI bump. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I'd rather deal with it as it comes rather then trying to jam |
| 12 |
everything into it now. EAPI allows us to do whatever we want once |
| 13 |
portage aware versions are deployed- I'd rather abuse that then make a |
| 14 |
mess of use/slot for syntax I personally dislike. :) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
~harring |
Archives