| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/30/05 Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 3 |
>>I don't think it is a wise path to interpret EAPI's as integers at |
| 4 |
>>all. There should not be guarantees of forward or backward |
| 5 |
>>compatibility between versions. Interpreting them as integers seems |
| 6 |
>>to imply that. Basically I think that EAPI could be anything wanted, |
| 7 |
>>similar to SLOTS. Of course using digits is easy for humans. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I've to agree with Paul here, portage should hold a list of all EAPI |
| 11 |
> values it understands, not a maximum value. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I also agree. It seems like a list of string identifiers will give us a high level of forward flexibility. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
For the implementation we can have a chain of EAPI handlers that are capable of determining whether or not they support a given EAPI. The first handler in the chain to accept the package will be allowed to handle it. Internally, these handlers may be able to share libraries and/or inherit from eachother. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Zac |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives