On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:43:54 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/eapi/eapi-2-draft.html
By table 6.11, are you implying that you consider the new pkg_ phase order to be part of EAPI 2? Really, Portage needs to revert the order and go back to the way it used to be for all EAPIs. The change breaks lots of existing ebuilds (you claim you've probably fixed everything in ::gentoo, but you don't know that and you've definitely not fixed overlays), including ebuilds using a common documented technique recommended by the devmanual. If you want the new pkg_* ordering to go through at all, it really needs a lengthy discussion on its own and it mustn't apply to any action that involves any existing EAPI. I'd like the Council to say that for anything involving EAPIs 0, 1 or 2 we stick to the pkg_* phase ordering we've used years. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
