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 1M8waQ-0000ff-Bc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 26 May 2009 13:20:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7ACE9E041B; Tue, 26 May 2009 13:20:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f213.google.com (mail-ew0-f213.google.com [209.85.219.213]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387D6E041B for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 13:20:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy9 with SMTP id 9so3490089ewy.34 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 06:20:55 -0700 (PDT) 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=FwV1bjsV7ryEmIeEoh4232EQWwMunWxy1alw+rKNowA=; b=JjpzUm+xDfLJJtllqcb+MH5U4yqmjHiXjt8oufF9vo9YGspvSMIDyxgR2VBcWYxJUh Dqg+Vo+Is+9fWKeOddZ07/1EEhg2h/OiGL1doKl0dSd1BA9KlfL5jNQR2AqByvhXx1AE dk+GvkaoMKy62udmaGGAnQxI867XoKOnnMuyE= 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=IPufoy9cNrYfAI65ZPs8lZiWI411NOwIZGRvxlYgJiISHMxhM+rltx5KX7kOEYAsQb nIk5PgUNYJ/MSla+UGH3YL8h0tOyfyXxBWHxwIhvs73k432QdA2HgzvcGpx5ODI8Yjde oZ23+P92sTkHBnPOSVTmGU+WY/LofIHTi70XE= Received: by 10.210.53.1 with SMTP id b1mr274925eba.78.1243344055636; Tue, 26 May 2009 06:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowcone (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm8198776eyz.1.2009.05.26.06.20.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 26 May 2009 06:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 14:20:48 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support Message-ID: <20090526142048.5c2695fe@snowcone> In-Reply-To: References: <200905252232.51170.rbu@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.1 (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; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/gNZkCIc1ajA6QwHwwa8DLzZ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 4af58c00-9fc7-490e-af7d-0145a1bc768b X-Archives-Hash: e32bafd7f4b759d45c4c51b73ee2aa04 --Sig_/gNZkCIc1ajA6QwHwwa8DLzZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:13:51 +0200 (CEST) lxnay@sabayonlinux.org wrote: > So, "::" vs "@" apart, is it something that is worth looking and > implementing in future EAPIs? Isn't it just a user issue, not one we want used anywhere where EAPI rules are in effect? --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/gNZkCIc1ajA6QwHwwa8DLzZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkob7LMACgkQ96zL6DUtXhG0hACgwBgpNk3Z6fWZRXBjXh28+z2E 7d4AoLG1WHPp/BzjB960glGBaX04Sl8p =DM8n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/gNZkCIc1ajA6QwHwwa8DLzZ--