| 1 |
On Monday 08 November 2004 03:07, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> What this says to me is that eclasses should be handled using |
| 3 |
> DEPEND-like syntax. inherit x11, or inherit >=x11-2. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
That is the only way if you don't want just to introduce version numbers. |
| 6 |
Version numbers allready work well now, so do we real full eclass version |
| 7 |
support (including depend like syntax (unlike .so libraries eclasses are |
| 8 |
bound at run, not at link time, so an unversioned inherit will still allways |
| 9 |
bind the most recent version)), or do we just want to introduce versioning in |
| 10 |
a simpler way. This is probably a good idea anyway as it should be future |
| 11 |
proof. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Paul |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 17 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 18 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 19 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives