On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:52:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Alex Alexander wrote: > > > >> please have a look at the attached patch. > > > >> -EAPI="1" > >> +EAPI="4" > > > > Shouldn't the ebuild's phase functions be updated from "EAPI 0 style" > > to "EAPI 2 style" too? > > If the goal is to get this stable in a week, and bypass the 1 month > waiting period, do we really want to change EAPI at this point? From > an end-user perspective updating the EAPI on the ebuild provides no > benefit. Why not just deal with that in a future revision? > > I don't see much value in rewriting the ebuild to use a new EAPI > simply because 4 > 1.
EAPI was bumped so I could use pkg_pretend, please check out my (incomplete) patch. -- Alex Alexander | wired + Gentoo Linux Developer ++ www.linuxized.com
pgphCUAIKNca3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
