On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > 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.
this is really up to the portage team to drive -mike
pgpZGiG319O6e.pgp
Description: PGP signature
