Marius Mauch wrote: >> And that still leaves the issue of EAPI 0 being the preexisting >> implementation. What exactly is so wrong with that? > > Which implementation exactly? Portage isn't frozen, the behavioris more > less constantly changing. Another issue are the things that just work by > accident or only exist for legacy reasons, you don't really want those > in a formal spec aimed at future developments. > Sure, the moving target thing was worrying me too. But ciaran has actually said that it'll be basically what portage should be doing atm (ie ignoring bugs.)
I don't see what's wrong with documenting legacy behaviour, so long as it is marked as such, or is in a legacy doc- not the spec used for future dev. But still, this is all moot as the work is in hand. > Also in general it's easier to extend a spec than to restrict it later > on, no matter what the spec is about. > No argument there. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
