* Re: [gentoo-pms] Do we want an EAPI 5?
@ 2011-06-30 12:43 99% ` Sebastian Luther
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Sebastian Luther @ 2011-06-30 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-pms
Am 30.06.2011 12:31, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> Should we start pushing for a reasonably quick EAPI 5? I'd see it as
> having:
>
> * The stuff that was left out of EAPI 3/4, which is to say :=/:*
> dependencies, and the IUSE_IMPLICIT stuff (especially since right
> now people are breaking the rules and implicitly using 'prefix' when
> they shouldn't, and the rules for (+) and (-) are largely useless
> without the stricter control).
You shouldn't insist on these two as long as there is no portage
implementation.
Are people (ebuild devs) really aware what introducing slot operator
deps would mean?
To make any use of them portage would have to stop updating installed
packages' metadata with ebuild metadata, which in turn means that
updating deps without revbump is going to cause problems for users.
I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it might not be what people
want.
Could you please give a summary (or point me to one) of the discussion
about :=/:*?
Specifically, why do we need two of them instead of declaring one of
them the default. And if we want both, what does it mean to not specify
one of them?
>
> * Cleaning up some deprecated stuff (see recent bugs).
>
> * A replacement for versionator, since apparently versionator is still
> using (a subset of) the ooooold version rules.
++
>
> I think there was something else too, but I forget what...
>
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2011-06-30 10:31 [gentoo-pms] Do we want an EAPI 5? Ciaran McCreesh
2011-06-30 12:43 99% ` Sebastian Luther
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox