On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:07:52AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Nooo! That's exactly the point I was making. Carsten is assuming that > > by using [slot:bar] syntax, no backwards incompatibility will be > > introduced by adding a new [fish:] key. > > Nooo! ;) I said it would look more consistent, than always adding a new way > (§$%&€<> or so) to describe or latest enhanced dependency atom. Either way, it's going to require depset extension, and an EAPI bump.
I'd rather deal with it as it comes rather then trying to jam everything into it now. EAPI allows us to do whatever we want once portage aware versions are deployed- I'd rather abuse that then make a mess of use/slot for syntax I personally dislike. :) ~harring
pgp2NtLa1e2Zu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
