-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:09:43 -0700 > Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In order to allow mixed EAPIs in the profiles, and to avoid having >> to configure the EAPI in every single layer, each directory of the >> profile stack should be able to either override or inherit the EAPI >> value that may have been defined in a previous layer of the profile >> stack. If no EAPI has been previously defined then it can be assumed >> to be 0. > > That gets really confusing. Easier to just have an eapi file in every > directory.
I think you're right. I don't see any really compelling need for inheritance or override behavior here. If the file is missing from a particular layer then we can simply assume that the layer's EAPI is 0. > Are we going to stick a file directly under profiles/ too? Some things > in there are EAPI dependent... It'd have to stay at 0 for quite a long > time, of course. Sure, that seems reasonable. That will allow us to eventually bump the EAPI for the package.mask and info_pkgs files (those seem to be the only ones that currently contain dependency atoms). - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkjoGNUACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOQhACfVK+pE9hPkDMUV/EOu26gB7Zn UjAAoJwT0L9PneRG4UvwWj2y5n18TV6c =FlAq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
