Hello,
As many of us already raged, the Python eclasses are delaying half
a year with support of EAPI=4. The reason for that is not actually
the lack of time or complexity of needed changes but willingness to use
the new EAPI as an excuse to turn the eclass API upside down.
The question I'm raisi
El mié, 27-07-2011 a las 09:39 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
> Hello,
>
> As many of us already raged, the Python eclasses are delaying half
> a year with support of EAPI=4. The reason for that is not actually
> the lack of time or complexity of needed changes but willingness to use
> the new EAPI
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 27-07-2011 a las 09:39 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
>> Hello,
>>
>> As many of us already raged, the Python eclasses are delaying half
>> a year with support of EAPI=4. The reason for that is not actually
>> the lack of time or complex
On 09:39 Wed 27 Jul , Michał Górny wrote:
> As many of us already raged, the Python eclasses are delaying half a
> year with support of EAPI=4. The reason for that is not actually the
> lack of time or complexity of needed changes but willingness to use
> the new EAPI as an excuse to turn th
Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
Eclasses still shouldn't break backwards compatibility — that hasn't
changed in the past 5 years, despite what a very small minority of
devs appears to think. This has been a huge PITA for python.eclass in
particular, which has broken tons of my ebuilds for no particula
On 27.07.2011 17:30, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
>> Eclasses still shouldn't break backwards compatibility — that hasn't
>> changed in the past 5 years, despite what a very small minority of
>> devs appears to think. This has been a huge PITA for python.eclass in
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:02:31 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> About the concrete case of python eclass, per Arfrever's comment in
> bug report related with its eapi4 support, that support is already
> available in overlay, but not yet merged to the tree (probably
> because of the possible upcoming reti
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:30:08 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
> > Eclasses still shouldn't break backwards compatibility — that
> > hasn't changed in the past 5 years, despite what a very small
> > minority of devs appears to think. This has been a huge PITA fo
Michał Górny schrieb:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:30:08 +0200
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>
>> Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
>>> Eclasses still shouldn't break backwards compatibility — that
>>> hasn't changed in the past 5 years, despite what a very small
>>> minority of devs appears to think.
2011-07-27 15:07:54 Rafael Goncalves Martins napisał(a):
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El mié, 27-07-2011 a las 09:39 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> As many of us already raged, the Python eclasses are delaying half
> >> a year with support of EAPI=
There are small changes between behavior in EAPI="3" and EAPI="4" in
python.eclass in python
overlay. The main change is improved syntax of PYTHON_DEPEND, which provides
support for more
situations and replaces PYTHON_USE_WITH* variables. 95 % of whole code in
python.eclass is
EAPI-independent,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> [1] https://www.ohloh.net/p/gentoo
>> [2]
>> http://git-exp.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=exp/gentoo-x86.git;a=summary
>
> It appears they count rather more commits than does CIA - Manifest
> commits look to be the likely cause.
>
>
Each u
12 matches
Mail list logo
