From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lbxke-0003DM-KQ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:55:13 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 526EBE0338; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:55:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E32FE0338 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:55:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.213] (unknown [74.92.132.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0CC64B40 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:55:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) From: Ferris McCormick To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20090223221915.108441bd@snowcone> References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> <1235378286.31617.6.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A26B84.7040006@gentoo.org> <1235383347.12908.0.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A2B276.1000109@gentoo.org> <49A2C40D.3060601@gentoo.org> <20090223132202.1cd1337e@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A30C3F.2030209@gentoo.org> <20090223205438.0349f967@snowcone> <20090223161525.458b78e2@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <20090223221915.108441bd@snowcone> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Knw9Ix7Pyqr+1Dsmide4" Organization: gentoo developer Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:55:08 +0000 Message-Id: <1235483708.23500.60.camel@liasis.inforead.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 X-Archives-Salt: cbba8a8e-247b-4cea-a412-4bbad5bd436d X-Archives-Hash: 803eb8d848f7c0898d3a90d3206a9eca --=-Knw9Ix7Pyqr+1Dsmide4 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 22:19 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:15:25 -0600 > Ryan Hill wrote: > > Can we ban eclasses from setting EAPI? Is there any case where it > > would be sane? >=20 > It's already banned from a QA perspective, but from a package manager > perspective people have done it in the past and possibly still do do > it, and the spec doesn't forbid it. >=20 For what it's worth, no eclass in the gentoo-x86/eclass tree sets EAPI. I don't know about anyplace else. Regards, Ferris --=20 Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) --=-Knw9Ix7Pyqr+1Dsmide4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkmj/DwACgkQQa6M3+I///dCNQCgjDJUKXHcJjeneF59spXypp/D vmUAnR4khxmemzatgfxSGsxP+Qkl3jje =N0vH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Knw9Ix7Pyqr+1Dsmide4--