On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:03:12 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:26:27 +0100 > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Marius Mauch wrote: > > > Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager has > > > to export to an ebuild/eclass. That includes syntax and semantics > > > of exported and expected functions and variables (IOW the content > > > of ebuilds/eclasses), but does not contain naming and versioning > > > rules (as those impact cross-package relationships). > > > > This restricted definition is ok for everybody? > > The restricted definition is certainly OK, but I'm not convinced that > the restriction is necessary. There's no particular reason that new > version formats can't be introduced in a new EAPI so long as the > version strings don't appear in ebuilds using older EAPIs or in > profiles. The issue is with comparison rules. For the current use case that's not an issue as it's simply a superset, so we could just use the new rules for everything. But if the rules are changed in an incompatible way, which rules would be used to compare version(EAPI_X) with version(EAPI_Y)? > Ditto for naming rules. Those are even more of an issue, as they apply before we know the eventual EAPI (need to access the category/package directory before you can parse the ebuild filename) Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
