Hello,
As many of us already raged, the Python eclasses are delaying half
a year with support of EAPI=4. The reason for that is not actually
the lack of time or complexity of needed changes but willingness to use
the new EAPI as an excuse to turn the eclass API upside down.
The question I'm
El mié, 27-07-2011 a las 09:39 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
Hello,
As many of us already raged, the Python eclasses are delaying half
a year with support of EAPI=4. The reason for that is not actually
the lack of time or complexity of needed changes but willingness to use
the new EAPI as
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El mié, 27-07-2011 a las 09:39 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
Hello,
As many of us already raged, the Python eclasses are delaying half
a year with support of EAPI=4. The reason for that is not actually
the lack of time or
On 09:39 Wed 27 Jul , Michał Górny wrote:
As many of us already raged, the Python eclasses are delaying half a
year with support of EAPI=4. The reason for that is not actually the
lack of time or complexity of needed changes but willingness to use
the new EAPI as an excuse to turn the
Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
Eclasses still shouldn't break backwards compatibility — that hasn't
changed in the past 5 years, despite what a very small minority of
devs appears to think. This has been a huge PITA for python.eclass in
particular, which has broken tons of my ebuilds for no
On 27.07.2011 17:30, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
Eclasses still shouldn't break backwards compatibility — that hasn't
changed in the past 5 years, despite what a very small minority of
devs appears to think. This has been a huge PITA for python.eclass in
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:02:31 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
About the concrete case of python eclass, per Arfrever's comment in
bug report related with its eapi4 support, that support is already
available in overlay, but not yet merged to the tree (probably
because of the possible
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:30:08 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
Eclasses still shouldn't break backwards compatibility — that
hasn't changed in the past 5 years, despite what a very small
minority of devs appears to think. This has been a
Michał Górny schrieb:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:30:08 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
Eclasses still shouldn't break backwards compatibility — that
hasn't changed in the past 5 years, despite what a very small
minority of devs appears to
2011-07-27 15:07:54 Rafael Goncalves Martins napisał(a):
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El mié, 27-07-2011 a las 09:39 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
Hello,
As many of us already raged, the Python eclasses are delaying half
a year with support of
There are small changes between behavior in EAPI=3 and EAPI=4 in
python.eclass in python
overlay. The main change is improved syntax of PYTHON_DEPEND, which provides
support for more
situations and replaces PYTHON_USE_WITH* variables. 95 % of whole code in
python.eclass is
EAPI-independent, so
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
[1] https://www.ohloh.net/p/gentoo
[2]
http://git-exp.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=exp/gentoo-x86.git;a=summary
It appears they count rather more commits than does CIA - Manifest
commits look to be the likely cause.
12 matches
Mail list logo
