Brian Harring wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 10:27:44PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
A better approach IMO would be to store the EAPI in a separate file such as
metadata.xml. This would allow *absolute* flexibility in the ebuild
format. Portage would be able to select an appropriate parser
On Friday 02 September 2005 07:27, Zac Medico wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 14:57, Brian Harring wrote:
Re: tagging EAPI at the top of a file, infra would probably shoot me
for doing such- till a live, fully compatible and *roughly*
equivalent parser is
On Friday 02 September 2005 08:04, Brian Harring wrote:
Like I've said, EAPI is ebuild specific. Ebuild is a format; eapi
defines revisions of it, in my mind a minor revision of the ebuild 1
format. Any form of loss of backwards compatability *should* be a
different format, .ebuild2 for all
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 10:53:05AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Friday 02 September 2005 08:04, Brian Harring wrote:
Like I've said, EAPI is ebuild specific. Ebuild is a format; eapi
defines revisions of it, in my mind a minor revision of the ebuild 1
format. Any form of loss of
