-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 03:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:22:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> <a...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 20/09/12 02:24
>> PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
>>> <a...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> I'm biased, so to me just auditing what portage does would
>>>> be good enough. :D
>>>
>>> You also need to audit what Portage did since EAPI 0 was
>>> introduced.
>
>> No, I don't think so. What portage does *now* is the important
>> thing for EAPI={0,1,2,3,4,5}, not what it has done over the
>> course of history.
>
> That would defeat the whole point of having stable EAPIs.
>
I don't expect we would be modifying older EAPIs , any usage of IUSE
etc within phase functions for those EAPIs would remain undefined imo;
the audit is just to determine what portage (optionally other PMs)
actually do now, to see what can be relied upon so usage of IUSE etc
within phase functions in EAPI6 (or an updated EAPI5, maybe) can be
explicitly stated, without requiring a PM implementation change.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlBbctIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDKlgD8CYgvFQnuB53qlm8rtbfEK1BL
j3ccHdEFlAHmbloAdSIA/jr7eGR2xhcvl84lEwdLNWMTBr+I5itWBROGV0RTtH33
=1lyp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
