Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:35:25 -0700 > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Did anyone already propose specifying this in metadata.xml? > > Yup. That's a no-go, since metadata.xml is quite rightly treated as > being "not suitable for anything the package manager really needs". > > It also moves the EAPI definition even further away from the ebuild, > which makes it even harder to work with. > > And, of course, it's not backwards compatible, so it'd still need a > file extension change. >
Another ugly solution: Having the EAPI on a per-package (like $portagedir/cat/package-1) or per-tree basis ($portagedir/profiles/eapi) and start providing our tree as overlays of more than one tree (will end up in a mess of dependencies, but it would still be nice to specify the EAPI for a complete overlay instead of having the name all the ebuilds like .eapi-X :-). In addition: it wouldn't be possible to identify the EAPI of an ebuild by just looking at it... -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
