On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:40:41 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Ryan Hill <dirtye...@gentoo.org> posted > 20090517111152.133c7...@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca, excerpted below, on Sun, 17 > May 2009 11:11:52 -0600: > > >> Do we want to document the following? (do we have already?) - When is > >> it allowed to use an EAPI in the tree (given as offset to the release > >> of portage supporting that eapi) - When is it allowed to use an EAPI in > >> the stable tree (given as offset of when a portage version supporting > >> that EAPI got stable) > > > > As soon as a version of portage supporting that EAPI is available. > > That's a dangerous position to take. See "experimental" EAPIs for > instance, sometimes temporarily supported by portage, but NOT for use in > the tree. > > But I think you knew that and simply made some assumptions with the > statement that not all readers may have. Yes, viewers at home, I'm speaking technically not politically. Technically you could add ebuilds for any EAPI the PM supports to the tree without affecting users. Politically, your fellow developers would stone you to death, put you in a sack, and drop you to the bottom of the sea. They might even revoke your commit access too. -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
