Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Make 10.0 profiles EAPI-2 'compliant'

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1127 bytes --]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:54:22 +0100
AllenJB <gentoo-lists@allenjb.me.uk> wrote:
> Could there be room for "fast track" EAPI's to be considered on some
> occasions - eg. in this case an EAPI-2.1 which is simply EAPI-2 with
> the "package.* as directory in profiles" feature included?

It's a possibility, since it's zero cost for Portage and an easy one
to word into the specification.

Another possibly nicer option would be to add the feature into EAPI 3.
However, if we're considering this, we'd have to be absolutely totally
clear that this isn't a call to open up EAPI 3 for yet more changes.

Zac said three months ago that Portage EAPI 3 support would be done in
a month, so it can't be far off ready.

We also need to consider whether people even want it done exactly the
way Portage does it now. Some developers have expressed a preference
for a package.mask.d of some kind instead.

So yes, it's something that could be done, if the Council is interested
and if it's not going to be used as an excuse to try to shove a whole
load of other things through at the same time.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]