1 |
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:19:41 -0400 |
2 |
Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net> wrote: |
3 |
> > Please explain what you mean. EAPIs are conceptually independent, |
4 |
> > and don't deprecate each other in any kind of way, and future EAPI |
5 |
> > releases can't retroactively change what previous EAPIs said. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> There's no reason why a subsequent EAPI cannot modify or remove |
8 |
> behavior created in a previous EAPI. |
9 |
|
10 |
If you mean "EAPIs don't have to include every feature that was |
11 |
included in a previous EAPI, and can do things differently from |
12 |
previous EAPIs" then sure. See, for example, dohard and dosed being |
13 |
removed in EAPI 3. |
14 |
|
15 |
If you mean that "EAPIs can change the meaning of older EAPIs", then |
16 |
you're wildly misunderstanding how the whole thing works. We couldn't |
17 |
use EAPI 3 to say that "it's illegal for EAPI 0, 1 and 2 things to use |
18 |
dohard and dosed"; that would defeat half of the point of having EAPIs. |
19 |
|
20 |
> >> This is a specifications document, not a history lesson covering |
21 |
> >> past mistakes. |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > Getting off-topic here, but which parts of kdebuild-1 do you think |
24 |
> > were mistakes? Given how kdebuild-1 features are making their way |
25 |
> > into EAPIs 2, 3 and beyond as Portage gains support for them, I'm |
26 |
> > sure you don't mean that every feature was wrong, so which of the |
27 |
> > remaining ones do you think shouldn't be adopted and why? |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> kdebuild itself wasn't a mistake, that it made it in when it's not |
30 |
> used was. |
31 |
|
32 |
Explain please. kdebuild-1 was used. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Ciaran McCreesh |