2008/6/9 Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:27:56 +0200
>> Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> > No point. A 0 package manager still couldn't use a 0.1 ebuild.
>>> >
>>> That's true, it has at least to be awa
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Having the EAPI versioned like this: X.Y where X is the postfix part of the
ebuild (foo-1.0.ebuild-X) and Y the "EAPI=Y" in the ebuild itself we could
increment Y in case the changes to the EAPI don't break sourcing (again: a
package manager will have to mask those ebuilds)
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:27:56 +0200
> Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > No point. A 0 package manager still couldn't use a 0.1 ebuild.
>> >
>> That's true, it has at least to be aware the there's an EAPI.
>> But how does such a packag
Peter Weller wrote:
> [..snip..]
>
> This doesn't, to me, really seem to be relevant to the original purpose
> of the thread. Can we either start a new thread or get this one back on
> topic?
In the context of whether this GLEP is complete and should be approved it
does make sense. It is importan
