-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 08/06/12 03:23 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: >> It's close enough to ABI_SLOT that it would make more sense just >> to use ABI_SLOT because it's more flexible. > > In that case, I think it's clear we need ABI_SLOT ;) The problem is > how to document it in a way people agree with including it for > eapi5 :|
If there's too much resistance it could wait for EAPI=6 couldn't it? Essentially we'd all just agree that these issues, which ABI_SLOT will be needed to effectively resolve, will have to wait and we shouldn't do vast tree-wide workarounds like SLOT every library in existence and require all consumers to have ':=' slot operators on their deps. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk/SUwwACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCWtQEArkrEsVYa7/tJ8UT1pDBhDhsJ +jdMEsbJa++3bWat9TUA/1YoEaOp3cGShNDraFv+cLQl2Qf+hpz3K1AasJVstQwa =Nqw/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
