On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 07:40 -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote: [...] > The difference is that putting the EAPI in the filename has backwards > compatibility because package managers not knowing about this change > won't even look at the those ebuilds. Putting EAPI as the fifth line > completely loses this, so as far as backwards compatibility goes putting > EAPI 55 in the filename really is the cleanest.
That's not very hard to overcome without polluting the file name, as I've already pointed out. -- Arun
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
