Zac Medico wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>> SLOT depends are something we could really use right now. What kind of
>> time frame are you thinking of?
>
> Trying to include things that aren't implemented or things that are
> controversial will delay it. It's difficult to make time estimates
> for anything that's not implemented yet.
>
> It's trivial to do the EAPI-1 bump if we only include things that
> are already implemented. I can have a sys-apps/portage release in
> the tree this week with EAPI-1 support if we choose to do that.
> Looking at bug #174380, I'd say that EAPI-1 should certainly include
> #174405, #174410, and #179380 since they're all implemented and
> relatively non-controversial. Anything more than those can lead to
> potential delays.
Yes please. ;P I think doing small incremental bumps would be better
than trying to stuff everything in at once. Doing it now would also
give us a sense of what to expect in future, more invasive EAPI changes.
--
fonts / wxWindows / gcc-porting / treecleaners
9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
