On 10/18/2012 09:09 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > Anyways, we're seriously getting off topic here. I don't think anyone > objected to removing the EAPI 0 requirement for system packages (and in > reality no one follows it anyways.
An EAPI 0 requirement for system packages is just silly these days. > Even portage is EAPI 3). For the recored, stable portage is EAPI 2, and there wasn't much choice in the matter since portage depends on python-2.6 which uses EAPI 2 (and we don't want EAPI 0 or 1 package managers pulling in a portage which depends on a python with an unsupported EAPI). -- Thanks, Zac
