Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:23:08 +0800 > Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I really don't see the necessity to have so many EAPI's > > A new EAPI is needed for new features, so new EAPIs will be needed in > the future. Equally, migrating the whole tree at once to newer EAPIs is > a) a lot of unnecessary work, and b) unnecessarily irritating to people > using older package managers.
I think we should first decide on how EAPI works. This is also a prerequisite for this glep to be further discussed. Just because we need a new feature, then we produce a new EAPI? I think that is not feasible, and will confuse developers. > >> especially PM specific EAPI. We can't have PM specific EAPI, >> otherwise we are risking forking/splitting ourself. > > Package manager EAPIs don't belong in the main tree, but they have uses > outside of it. Then would you please introduce how paludis-1 EAPI differs from official EAPI's? -- Zhang Le, Robert GPG key ID: 1E4E2973 Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1E4E 2973 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
