On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:17:57 +0200 Ben de Groot <yng...@gentoo.org> wrote: > 1. "Incompatible change of inherit (e.g. make it look in the package > dir too)" > A case would need to be made, in my opinion, as to why we would wish > to allow this in the first place. The current inherit behavior with > eclasses in a central place works well enough. So I think we can > disregard this.
There are already horrible hacks in the tree to get per-package 'eclasses'. That's a clear sign there's something lacking. > 2. "Add new global scope functions in any sane way" > This is a valid use case, as seen by the eapi-2 update. But the way > this is currently handled by portage (advising to upgrade the package > manager) works. So I don't see a need to change the file extension for > this reason. It means we can't start using those new global scope functions until we're sure that everyone's going to be upgraded, because users get extremely upset if they start seeing that kind of message. > 3. "Extend versioning rules in an EAPI - for example, addition of the > scm suffix - GLEP54 [1] or allowing more sensible version formats like > 1-rc1, 1-alpha etc. to match upstream more closely." > Apart from GLEP54, I believe our versioning scheme works reasonably > well. I don't see any need to match upstream more closely. I'd rather > like to keep the more uniform way of handling suffixes like rc and > alpha, that we have now. Please explain why 1.2_rc3 is legal but 1.2-rc3 is not. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
