On Sat, 20 May 2006 15:41:37 +0100 Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The primary package manager is the package manager that sets the > > standards for the tree. All ebuilds in the tree must function > > with the primary package manager. As the primary package manager > > sets the standard it does not have to maintain compatibility with > > other package managers. > > The current 'Portage defines the tree format' is IMO a cause of a lot > of problems at the moment. It would be better, I think, to define in a > package-manager-agnostic document just what the current ebuild format > (EAPI 0) means. If at any point in the future the primary package > manager changes in what it supports and/or requires, a new EAPI spec > is written. The council, or some other body, can then define which > EAPI formats may be used by ebuilds in the tree. Full ACK on this one, though EAPI itself is insufficient, it would only define the ebuild format, but you also have to look at the repo itself (see past -portage-dev discussions about this), e.g. for the Manifest or profile formats. It's not that easy to conform to a spec that doesn't really exist (unless you consider the implementation as spec). Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
