On 06/15/13 19:02, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400 >> Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have >>> implemented a certain behavior, making a change to that version of PMS >>> to properly document the behavior seems reasonable. >> Part of the point of EAPI stability is that it doesn't just apply to >> current versions of package manglers. >> > So look back at the first versions which implemented EAPI 4 support, > and see what the behavior was implemented at the point in time. > it make sense but it stretch things a lot.
Is it possible to: - keep an open bug (tracker) on named eclasses/ebuilds, so we (users and devs) know that there is a (teoric) fallacy - approve it for EAPI 6 - move all the eapi/ebuilds to EAPI 6 - close the bugs as WONT-FIX In any case it should be easy to port an ebuild from EAPI4 to 6, if gentoers want to keep things simple it could be more a version 5a than 6 regards
