| 1 |
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@×××××××.nl> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Please review these changes. I will send a detailed note about |
| 4 |
>> the particular changes I've made in a reply to this mail. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> The general changes are: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> - clean up, update, getting rid of python.eclass implicity, |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> - the compiled modules are now part of the package (as with other |
| 11 |
>> python-r1 suite ebuilds), |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> - an additional 'epython' module is installed which could be used to |
| 14 |
>> quickly get the correct 'EPYTHON' value for the current Python |
| 15 |
>> implementation (it will be used in python-exec's .py support). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Sorry for being a bit late to the party. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Has Mike looked at this already? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Would it make sense to split this patch up? One patch for EPYTHON, one |
| 22 |
> patch for the compiled stuff changes, one patch for EAPI fixes (all |
| 23 |
> the || die stuff) and one patch for miscellaneous cleanups? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Also, gentoo-dev might have some things to say about making a @system |
| 26 |
> dep EAPI=4, IIRC? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The EAPI bump is my main issue as well. We could just keep an old |
| 30 |
ebuild around for a while (perpetually?) to help people with really |
| 31 |
outdated systems. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Otherwise, it looks ok to me. |
Archives