On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:24:25 +0100 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Either way, EAPI=1 *should* have a bit more then just slot deps in > >> my opinion; very least it needs discussion to discern what folks > >> want. > > > > Well, EAPI 1 needs to be delivered quickly... > > Why exactly does EAPI=1 need to be rushed?
Because the tree needed the functionality in question several years ago. > I thought the whole point of 0 was allowing a base, so that new stuff > could be developed while guaranteeing certain behaviour. What's the > hurry? It's not like there are systems b0rking or anything because > EAPI=1 isn't around; Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into a later EAPI. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
