2009-08-12 20:41:30 Tomáš Chvátal napisał(a):
> Dne středa 12 Srpen 2009 19:58:05 Jeremy Olexa napsal(a):
> > I am suggesting that the new 10.0 profiles be marked as EAPI-2
> > compliant. This involves setting the content of the 'eapi' file to "2"
> > and bumping up the required portage version.
>
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Also we should allow the stuff as directory thingus (portage already
> handles it right).
That's a seperate thing that needs EAPI control. You'll need to propose
it for EAPI 4 if you want that.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Descript
Dne středa 12 Srpen 2009 19:58:05 Jeremy Olexa napsal(a):
> I am suggesting that the new 10.0 profiles be marked as EAPI-2
> compliant. This involves setting the content of the 'eapi' file to "2"
> and bumping up the required portage version.
>
> This seems like progress to me. Often, developers ar
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> I am suggesting that the new 10.0 profiles be marked as EAPI-2
> compliant. This involves setting the content of the 'eapi' file to "2"
> and bumping up the required portage version.
+1
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> I am suggesting that the new 10.0 profiles be marked as EAPI-2
> compliant. This involves setting the content of the 'eapi' file to "2"
> and bumping up the required portage version.
YES!! Please.
Ben
I am suggesting that the new 10.0 profiles be marked as EAPI-2
compliant. This involves setting the content of the 'eapi' file to "2"
and bumping up the required portage version.
This seems like progress to me. Often, developers are complaining that
they can't use SLOT syntax in profiles (I know t
