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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-34477-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1Lbj4G-00026I-8T
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:14:28 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 328B8E04FB;
Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:14:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB8AE04FB
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:14:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7097EB5BA3
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:14:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org
X-Spam-Score: -3.421
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.421 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.178,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id N9wqwnDBf9FN for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:14:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6CAB49D0
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:14:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Lbj3z-0001Iw-Qh
for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:14:12 +0000
Received: from s0106001f3b27dbf9.mj.shawcable.net ([70.64.208.8])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:14:11 +0000
Received: from dirtyepic by s0106001f3b27dbf9.mj.shawcable.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:14:11 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary
Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:15:25 -0600
Message-ID: <20090223161525.458b78e2@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca>
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>
<efeb8d230902230228s1e9f1f06ja5e1e90f5f13d005@mail.gmail.com>
<49A2B276.1000109@gentoo.org>
<49A2C40D.3060601@gentoo.org>
<20090223132202.1cd1337e@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca>
<49A30C3F.2030209@gentoo.org>
<20090223205438.0349f967@snowcone>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/Wx_8oRyhxnjlgXqxgEwtuyq";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s0106001f3b27dbf9.mj.shawcable.net
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>
X-Archives-Salt: 1aaf48b0-3de6-409a-adc7-17ded143e62c
X-Archives-Hash: 6c5d7b957bb365b3b8c50a394937e6d0
--Sig_/Wx_8oRyhxnjlgXqxgEwtuyq
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:54:38 +0000
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:51:11 +0100
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 2. (with myeclass.eclass containing EAPI=3D2)
> > > -----
> > > EAPI=3D1
> > > inherit myeclass
> >=20
> > Invalid
>=20
> QA violation, but legal and a pain in the ass.
I didn't think it was a brainy thing to do, but I can't find anything
saying it isn't allowed. It probably shouldn't be.
> > > 3. (with myeclass.eclass containing EAPI=3D2)
> > > -----
> > > EAPI=3D5
> > > inherit myeclass
> >=20
> > Invalid
>=20
> QA violation, but legal and a pain in the ass.
>=20
Can we ban eclasses from setting EAPI? Is there any case where it
would be sane?
--=20
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
--Sig_/Wx_8oRyhxnjlgXqxgEwtuyq
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkmjH/0ACgkQiqiDRvmkBmJcIgCgna+u0XOEu1izg58tpUQik2bS
eaIAoKM+DQ3LoHpSabR60WC35FxVv2ur
=Rx6z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Sig_/Wx_8oRyhxnjlgXqxgEwtuyq--