El lun, 19-12-2011 a las 09:31 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:07:45 +0100 > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > El dom, 18-12-2011 a las 23:02 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: > > [...] > > > > Q6: Why can't the dodoc/dohtml path be changed before EAPI-5? > > > > A6: Because the path where dodoc and dohtml install files is part > > > > of the PMS. Portage can't just change it on its own. A possible > > > > workaround for current EAPIs is adding new-style dodoc/dohtml > > > > analogues to an eclass. > > > > > > I think some of devs agree we should be allowed to fix past mistakes > > > without waiting another 20 years till the tree is migrated to a new > > > EAPI... > > > > > > > Maybe this situation could be improved if there was a policy forcing > > us to try to use latest EAPI when possible for any package update, > > that way we would move faster to latest eapi and even deprecate older > > eapis easily > > Still unlikely. A bunch of old eclasses will force ebuilds to be EAPI 0 > or so. >
Well, I was meaning eapis different than 0, I know it will need to be kept more time due backwards compatibility ;) Regarding other eapis, how many eclasses are still requiring old eapis? I think games.eclass was one of them, but haven't reviewed others :S
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
