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 1Lbj94-0002j6-Ei for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:19:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 43D3AE053E; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:19:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f161.google.com (mail-fx0-f161.google.com [209.85.220.161]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F33E053E for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:19:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so2226294fxm.10 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:19:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=XtqoIjnyVClW/yq3B+q+w59eoxxIswn12xjhf52MUY8=; b=KXeQ6pm4R3YHudToj59kHO/P6V8eiB++xTc8LgDoOBWk9SX8z3PfA/HWaWO1pvOydS My15ykAulKPaDn1bnDS1pnlYeu1vsKmQ4BuEFTmjU6naSv1yPaiIaGpCTaDIqEbJ766I CEX03FY2jffwWcjIp62Sywpre1yBYCXyVP7Fk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=XLgrKfxwXMozYdKnz0rU5R49US9OXhXxa5q8VMwRwC+qUlJCr7aFHH5USmEZ1Zt9On UE4hHTt92M3Ppczu79Vmd8SYqoKtPAcvrQ8ZyD5KMLkAwACkis+FZlsG+OekFedv/gWZ dDRmaAFo3v1+S4zLhAwYduMCKjsF1w5juvTeI= Received: by 10.223.108.210 with SMTP id g18mr6344284fap.38.1235427564207; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:19:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowcone (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p32sm8347287ugc.0.2009.02.23.14.19.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:19:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:19:15 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) Message-ID: <20090223221915.108441bd@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <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> <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> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/YbM+G_3bQpsk.wvoaq/w9hR"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 8c6cd1ec-9b79-4117-8d3d-00f8ed68762c X-Archives-Hash: 734261e287228d31dc7539909d699ef7 --Sig_/YbM+G_3bQpsk.wvoaq/w9hR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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? 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 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/YbM+G_3bQpsk.wvoaq/w9hR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmjIOcACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEAigCeIcrMol0u8iGg/uR6Gk1zDnBt CRkAn2jwv1hCRikbkVL/ZOPSpHZo4PM2 =xo1w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/YbM+G_3bQpsk.wvoaq/w9hR--