On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
I don't see a reason to deprecate an EAPI, unless you are out to
stop a specific feature from being used that was introduced in a
later EAPI and breaks the earlier EAPI. Those ebuilds should be
converted or otherwise taken care of, but it still
On 12/31/2010 12:29 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 12/30/2010 07:37 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
As the text was just approved it will take a while before Package
Managers release new versions that declare support for EAPI 4. As such,
the new EAPI 4 can't yet be used in the main tree. You will be
* Micha?? Górny mgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
What do you think about this idea ?
You mean what do we think about portage-2.2 and preserved-libs?
Well, I'm still using portage-2.1, so I wans't aware of whats going
on there. For now it seems the preservation is still done explicitly
On Saturday, January 01, 2011 23:09:11 Enrico Weigelt wrote:
BTW: several blog/maillist postings talked about the problem that
even on recompile, older library versions could be linked in even
on recompile.
you'll need to provide an actual example. i have yet to see one.
-mike
signature.asc
On 01/01/2011 08:09 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Well, I'm still using portage-2.1, so I wans't aware of whats going
on there. For now it seems the preservation is still done explicitly
(preserve_old_lib calls in certain ebuilds ?). My proposal is to
record the necessary information (eg. which so
On Sunday, January 02, 2011 00:17:03 Zac Medico wrote:
On 01/01/2011 08:09 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Well, I'm still using portage-2.1, so I wans't aware of whats going
on there. For now it seems the preservation is still done explicitly
(preserve_old_lib calls in certain ebuilds ?). My
On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 00:08:34 -0500
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Saturday, January 01, 2011 23:09:11 Enrico Weigelt wrote:
BTW: several blog/maillist postings talked about the problem that
even on recompile, older library versions could be linked in even
on recompile.
you'll
