-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Steve Long wrote: > Zac Medico wrote: > >>> Plus, once we have this, it looks to me that nobody has to wait for >>> EAPI=1 in order to use whatever portage feature that's needed by an >>> ebuild. So we can all stop complaining about not having EAPI=1 in the >>> form we wanted or at all, and get back to writing ebuilds. >> For metadata syntax changes, such as IUSE defaults, a simple portage >> dependency won't work. In that case EAPI is needed in order to >> prevent older versions of portage from interpreting new ebuilds in >> ways that are not intended (leading to unpredictable results). >> > Is there a cut-off for portage atm wrt versions you do not support? > > I'm wondering at what point you can say we don't support less than 2.1.2. It > seems odd that a distro which operates like Gentoo would not cut off > support for old versions in line with the rest of the tree, when binary > ones do (which is why ubuntu LTS was attractive.)
We don't introduce incompatible changes into the tree until the required features have been available in the in a stable version of portage for at least 1 year. The purpose of EAPI is to minimize the impact of incompatible changes so that we can start using new extensions as soon as possible. See http://dev.gentoo.org/~genone/docs/treedeps.txt for more ideas (Marius already mentioned this earlier in the thread). Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHDxnT/ejvha5XGaMRAuGxAJ9sRww2ryQZEuBC2Lo958Q7uOlLQwCdFI4d MyrGAZQkb+2T4FdrTksakxM= =s5uA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
