-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think it's OK to start using package.use now considering that >> package.use has been supported since portage-2.1.2 and that's been >> stable since February. There are already a couple of packages using >> it in the tree now. > > Is it a good idea for those ebuilds that require new features to have > a >= dependency on a specific version of portage ? Or not ? Can this > help when switching EAPIs ? Or plug the gap while the decision to > switch to EAPI=1 is being taken ? Does /me need more coffee or a good > clue-batting session ? > > Denis.
Adding a dependency on >=sys-apps/portage-2.1.2 is a reasonable idea since that does ensure that the package.use is properly accounted for. Since EAPI only governs ebuilds and not profiles, you'd have to use IUSE defaults to get a similar effect while taking advantage of EAPI. The problem with EAPI-1 at the moment is that it's only supported by an unstable version of portage, which means that repoman users with stable portage will be unable to work with any ebuilds that have EAPI=1 defined. Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHDJNZ/ejvha5XGaMRAv0BAJwIxec1FPMJQYjSJeolEyVC4njgfQCeMKb+ 8YgKitdWk8difKGR4nJkYuo= =51KN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
