| 1 |
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> We already "encourage" using the newest EAPI, see 20110308 meeting. |
| 3 |
> (Though I fail to find this recommendation in the devmanual, shouldn't |
| 4 |
> it be there?) |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Should we have a stricter rule? Would such a rule help significantly |
| 7 |
> reducing the number of EAPI 0 ebuilds? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Anticipating the likely objection (which I'm sure the Council is |
| 10 |
already well aware of), perhaps a more constructive way to look at |
| 11 |
this is whether there is a way to better promote adoption of slot |
| 12 |
operators wherever it is applicable? That would be something that |
| 13 |
would create real tangible improvement to the distro that most devs |
| 14 |
would really get behind (IMHO). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'm fine with even turning that into a quality rule - deps should |
| 17 |
support subslots where appropriate, and packages should use slot |
| 18 |
operators where appropriate. Obviously there is a transition |
| 19 |
involved. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Rich |
Archives