| 1 |
On 04/02/2013 03:37 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 4/2/13 7:25 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 3 |
>> We already "encourage" using the newest EAPI, see 20110308 meeting. |
| 4 |
>> (Though I fail to find this recommendation in the devmanual, shouldn't |
| 5 |
>> it be there?) |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Should we have a stricter rule? Would such a rule help significantly |
| 8 |
>> reducing the number of EAPI 0 ebuilds? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Rules do not make things happen, especially not in a situation like here. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Known problems: |
| 13 |
> - EAPI-0 used to provide an upgrade path (for system packages) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This only makes sense as long as we have profiles supporting the |
| 16 |
relevant EAPI. Do we still have any EAPI 0 profiles that are relevant? |
| 17 |
In profiles/releases/10.0/eapi we have EAPI 2. So, perhaps those system |
| 18 |
packages could be using EAPI 2 as well. |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Thanks, |
| 21 |
Zac |
Archives