On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 06:00:32 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I disagree. It's very easy and probably the best way of doing > > things to say "If ebuilds want to use slot deps, use deps or blah, > > they set EAPI=1. Otherwise, continue as normal.". So far as I'm > > aware, everything currently planned for EAPI 1 is an extension, not > > a change in behaviour. > > Fair bit more was on the table as potentials for EAPI1; breaking > src_compile into src_configure/src_compile, glep33 (eclass2 > seperation), misc reductions of env vars and tightening of various > metadata (RESTRICT for example, formally forbiding the no* form).
Which isn't a problem, so long as these are all things that can be introduced pretty much straight away. If any of them aren't ready to go, they'd be better held off to EAPI-2. After all, people seem to want to be allowed to use :slot deps right now... None of these are anything that would end up sounding bad if worded as "as per existing practice, except ...". -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
