Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:45:37 +0200 > Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> And why don't we change the versioning of the EAPI to a "X.Y" scheme >> and demand that changes in the minor version must not break sourcing >> of the ebuild with older package managers and that major versions do. >> Major version numbers are written in the postfix, while minor version >> numbers are written in the ebuild itself as EAPI_MINOR="1". So, the >> current EAPI 1 would then be in fact "0.1". > > No point. A 0 package manager still couldn't use a 0.1 ebuild. > That's true, it has at least to be aware the there's an EAPI. But how does such a package manager handle .ebuild-0 files? Ignore them? Failing because of unknown files in a package-dir? Should we care about package managers not being aware of the existence of EAPI's?
The advantage of the above would be that we could gradually implement new (not-breaking-sourcing) features incrementing the minor version. Avoiding big chunks of changes (which usually means greater risk). -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
