Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@×××.de>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Do we want an EAPI 5?
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:44:29
In Reply to: [gentoo-pms] Do we want an EAPI 5? by Ciaran McCreesh
Am 30.06.2011 12:31, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> Should we start pushing for a reasonably quick EAPI 5? I'd see it as > having: > > * The stuff that was left out of EAPI 3/4, which is to say :=/:* > dependencies, and the IUSE_IMPLICIT stuff (especially since right > now people are breaking the rules and implicitly using 'prefix' when > they shouldn't, and the rules for (+) and (-) are largely useless > without the stricter control).
You shouldn't insist on these two as long as there is no portage implementation. Are people (ebuild devs) really aware what introducing slot operator deps would mean? To make any use of them portage would have to stop updating installed packages' metadata with ebuild metadata, which in turn means that updating deps without revbump is going to cause problems for users. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it might not be what people want. Could you please give a summary (or point me to one) of the discussion about :=/:*? Specifically, why do we need two of them instead of declaring one of them the default. And if we want both, what does it mean to not specify one of them?
> > * Cleaning up some deprecated stuff (see recent bugs). > > * A replacement for versionator, since apparently versionator is still > using (a subset of) the ooooold version rules.
> > I think there was something else too, but I forget what... >


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] Do we want an EAPI 5? Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>