Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > I am aware of the fact that we are late for EAPI 3 (partly because I > didn't expect that the change would require an EAPI bump). Question to > the council: is it still possible to include this? Considering that > there is a lot of breakage, as well as strange workarounds related to > the current inconsistent behaviour of package managers. >
For most features the block is the need for Portage to implement the feature. If I read the thread correctly, Portage already implements what is wanted here so it's just a matter of agreeing on the specification. I don't see any reason not to have something in EAPI 3 if it's specified and implemented in the same time frame as the main driving features of EAPI 3. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
