Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-18 Thread David Leverton
2009/5/18 Steven J Long : > David Leverton wrote: > >> 2009/5/17 Ben de Groot : >>> I think the way eapi-2 was introduced into the tree wasn't particularly >>> problematic. >> >> I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Ciaran means functions >> provided by the package manager that ebuilds c

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-18 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:07:20 +0100 > Steven J Long wrote: >> I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this >> oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at >> least 5 years. > > Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-18 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:07:20 +0100 Steven J Long wrote: > I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this > oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at > least 5 years. Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator? Anything that finally lets us kil

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:15:24 -0600 Ryan Hill wrote: > I'd like 2 if we could have multiple same-versioned ebuilds of > different EAPI. 3 is good enough for me. We couldn't. Allowing multiple equal but different ebuilds gets highly crazy -- EAPIs aren't orderable, so it's not obvious which one th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-17 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
2009/5/17 Ryan Hill : > On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200 > Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer. >> >> Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is: >> >> 1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously) >> 2. EAPI in the filename