From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M5OWg-0003Tg-Sn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 16 May 2009 18:22:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 905A3E05D9; Sat, 16 May 2009 18:22:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com (cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com [75.180.132.120]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764D0E05D9 for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 18:22:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from linux1.localdomain ([66.25.35.110]) by cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090516182225124.CUEV13751@cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com> for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 18:22:25 +0000 Received: by linux1.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C042343C03; Sat, 16 May 2009 13:22:24 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 13:22:24 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55 Message-ID: <20090516182224.GA8448@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <200905142006.51998.patrick@gentoo.org> <20090515204905.54aa6a5c@snowmobile> <4A0E8717.5070600@gentoo.org> <200905161059.53706.levertond@googlemail.com> <4A0E9F66.1070508@gentoo.org> <20090516181007.GA8308@linux1> <20090516191400.2a435f3c@snowmobile> 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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-action=pgp-signed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090516191400.2a435f3c@snowmobile> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Archives-Salt: c9b1f43e-1462-42ed-b270-a932e1bd6185 X-Archives-Hash: 80fac6d38481eb944b7cefff1846e432 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 07:14:00PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:10:07 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > > Agreed. The way I have always usedEAPI is, you set it once at the top > > of the EBUILD and you are done with it. As far as I know, there is no > > reason to change EAPI once it is set, and eclasses shouldn't be > > changing it. > > But eclasses have tried changing it. This is something people have > done, not some hypothetical. I see that as an issue with those eclasses then; they need to be fixed so they don't change the EAPI. They can test for it, but that is all they should do. Maybe that needs to be documented somewhere if it isn't already. - -- William Hubbs gentoo accessibility team lead williamh@gentoo.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoPBGAACgkQblQW9DDEZThZ8ACdHK+5d2xjzAONo/IcuVPR3D5j rTkAoLm4c3o7IVxh2kq3SD8aTUaB4ROb =NjOq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----