Hi, I don'f feel very well with this idea especially because no matter how hard I try I don't get comfortable with EAPI-3. No offense to our prefix guys, you surely did a hell of a good job and EAPI-3 seems to really get you out of quite some trouble you had with earlier EAPIs, but... I for myself never tried a prefix installation and I don't have any intentions to do this in the foreseeable future so I still prefer EAPI-2 wherever I can simply because EAPI-3 imposes overhead on my side which I have no real benefit from and I have no real clue about how to write proper EAPI-3 ebuilds.
-- Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) Gentoo package maintainer and bug-wrangler Am Dienstag 25 Januar 2011, 12:20:30 schrieb Tomáš Chvátal: > Hi, > I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree. > Currently we say that developers can use any named version they wish or > find sufficient. > I would on other hand like to have all ebuilds to use Latest EAPI > version possible (given the eclasses support it [hint hint maintainers > of eclasses should always try to support latest :P]) with expection for > base-system or more specialy depgraph for portage that needs to be > EAPI0. [[ And here we need to find out some upgrade proccess that would > work for everyone so we could somehow migrate them too :)]] > > With this usually new developers should be aware only of latest EAPI and > wont need to memorize what which EAPI support. Heck even I sometimes > forget what i can do with some version and whatnot. > > Winner for being PITA in this race is python.eclass that HAS completely > different behavior based on EAPI version used... > > Cheers > > Tomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
