On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 15:23:58 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> To be honest I personally consider that ("eapis are not ordered") an
> abomination, and my personal wish would be to keep them large-scale
> ordered with (among one major version) unordered sub-versions
> ("4-xxx") if needed. or at least keep all PMS-approved eapis ordered.
> "Experimental eapis for use in third party software" should not
> require any mentioning in pms anyway. :]I think you're missing the point of that declaration... It's fine for you to think of EAPI 4 as being newer than EAPI 3. It's not fine for you to consider EAPI 4 to be a superset of EAPI 3, and it's not fine to try using comparisons other than string equality (with the annoying special case for "" being "0") on an EAPI value. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
