On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi everyone, > > Please consider a new "eapi" profile configuration file that will > designate the EAPI to which any package atoms within a given layer > of the profile stack must conform. This will allow package managers > to bail out with an informative error message if the user > accidentally selects a profile containing an EAPI that is not > supported by the currently installed package manager.
Long Long Ago there was a conversation about versioning profiles; is there some reason why you prefer the eapi method (which arguably has a smaller scope) over full profile api versioning (PAPI?) Arguably we could use both in the future as well. > > 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. > > The format of the configuration file can be very simple, containing > only the EAPI value and nothing more. For example, a file containing > just a single "0" character, followed by a newline, could be > created at profiles/base/eapi in order to explicitly declare that > atoms in the base profile conform to EAPI 0. However, this > particular declaration would be redundant since the base profile > does not inherit from any other profile and therefore it's EAPI > would be assumed to be 0 anyway. > > Does this seem like a good approach? Are there any suggestions for > improvements or alternative approaches? PAPI :) > - -- > Thanks, > Zac > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkjmtEYACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNtSQCfXb2OQAYCEAe0Uuuu7Ou+DxyV > QZsAn0VpUbKqHJP0XRZSg6mhFKeUNXui > =qR8c > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
