Kindly respond to the rest of the email first of all... On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 06:22:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:16:21 -0700 > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Also, there is absolutely no reason for all future EAPIs to be a > > > superset of old eapis. > > > > .ebuild-$EAPI-n requires all *versioning rules* to be a superset of > > $EAPI=(n-1); if in doubt, re-read my example above. > > No it doesn't. It requires that versions be mappable to a single, > enumerable master version format. Big difference. You could quite > happily add -scm and remove _p in future EAPIs, for example.
Lay out how .006/.6 would work properly *per* eapi. As I clarified in my last email, the master would vary dependant on the eapi- which isn't valid unless you're retroactively overriding the versioning rules of an eapi. ~harring
pgpW4JMkxD1cz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
