On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:17:54 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:03:49AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:57:07 -0800 Brian Harring | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | Not saying it's a great idea, but EAPI exists to provide | > | immediate transition to incompatible changes instead of the usual | > | "work out a semi backwards compatible way, don't use it for 6 | > | months, then deal with the bugs". | > | > Addition of any new dependency filtering criterion is a backwards | > incompatible change anyway. If you add, say, [fish:trout] and older | > versions of Portage don't recognise [fish:], there's no way for said | > older Portage versions to know what to do. Being able to parse | > additional DEPEND constructs is not sufficient. | | Guessing you're missing how EAPI works. The scenario you're pointing | at isn't an issue for EAPI aware portage versions.
Nooo! That's exactly the point I was making. Carsten is assuming that by using [slot:bar] syntax, no backwards incompatibility will be introduced by adding a new [fish:] key. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
