From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HcpaW-0006JK-AF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:15:16 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3ELEJE1016000; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:14:19 GMT Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org (170.Red-213-96-222.staticIP.rima-tde.net [213.96.222.170]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3ELCPVj013727 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:12:26 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB2998D33C for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:08:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tungsteno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11962-08 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:08:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from snowflake (unknown [62.6.163.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887E68D305 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:08:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:12:36 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 1 (Was: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April) Message-ID: <20070414221236.26614b2d@snowflake> In-Reply-To: <462128C4.8040206@gentoo.org> References: <20070401092940.1B4C26441E@smtp.gentoo.org> <200704052240.56083.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <20070405212406.GA13118@seldon> <200704060016.18194.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <20070405221147.GB13118@seldon> <20070411154101.79634783@snowflake> <20070413142116.d6d00c8b.genone@gentoo.org> <20070413153842.6089a449@snowflake> <4620A27F.7030502@gentoo.org> <20070414161651.50b72f69@snowflake> <462128C4.8040206@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.8.1 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Sig_6O0oH1Q54YDA2Tj8yLaNKUQ; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ferdyx.org X-Archives-Salt: 13b1a2fc-e5a1-4d02-9b48-a6ac2533466a X-Archives-Hash: ddb8d24f0143ff38cb9178fa5a132cfb --Sig_6O0oH1Q54YDA2Tj8yLaNKUQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:17:24 -0700 Alec Warner wrote: > The whole argument against doing it the other way is that running > tests, outside of RESTRICT, has absolutly nothing to do with any kind > of api; which is why I'm against it. At that point arch teams would > essentially be hijacking EAPI for something it was never meant to > cover. We all know how bad that can be no? Ebuild functions are an EAPI issue. They address how ebuilds are used by the package manager. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_6O0oH1Q54YDA2Tj8yLaNKUQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGIUPG96zL6DUtXhERAvuyAJ4++b8N3FzhXtfQy3PKX/0347DXpQCggc7a WAtm5z2YpkDQ5k/50hBVHM4= =yEK8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_6O0oH1Q54YDA2Tj8yLaNKUQ-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list