El jue, 25-07-2013 a las 22:30 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió: > On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:26:48 -0700 > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > About one month ago I've filed > > <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474358> about modernizing > > toolchain.eclass by creating new toolchain-r1.eclass and migrating > > ebuilds using it to the new eclass. > > > > Please see attachments and review the code. > > > > One issue has already been raised, and it's prefix-related changes. I > > don't know what to change there, but I'm happy to test suggested changes. > > > > Then there is a question whether toolchain packages should use EAPI 5, > > and I think providing an upgrade path is a good concern. Given > > portage/python constraints though, it seems to me it would be fine. If > > you think it'd be better, I could use a lower EAPI just in case. > > > > All feedback is welcome. > > I meant to work on this last week but got distracted. I have a bunch of > build changes testing locally but need to make some cross compilers. > > I don't think we will be moving to 5 very soon. I have nothing against it but > Mike might be a harder sell. I want USE deps so I'm going to do 2 at least, > then get the prefix guys on board for 3. > > Like I said on the bug I don't think we want to do a new eclass (or if we did > I > would make a toolchain-next for masked versions and backport stuff). > >
Last time I talked with him, Mike was ok with eapi4 for base-system packages, but no idea if toolchain will have a special treatment. Better wait for him to reply here :/
