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 1S5jKh-0005hm-Cm for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:49:03 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17799E0978; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:48:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1053E0950 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:48:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.89.69.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 970FD1B4027 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:48:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:48:01 -0300 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds Message-ID: <20120308164801.61a11b5b@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20120308193116.6f06f81d@googlemail.com> References: <20311.51166.725757.212932@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20312.24445.451487.577826@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <4F58CFE3.8070408@gentoo.org> <4F58DCA1.2040000@gentoo.org> <20120308162902.4bc8e352@googlemail.com> <1331225973.4519.21.camel@rook> <20120308170342.7d36d75e@googlemail.com> <20313.1493.174995.341187@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120308193116.6f06f81d@googlemail.com> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 63205842-4851-4ae0-8f55-7a6b6dac951e X-Archives-Hash: 5ef078e44a7e7b540bd7f63149e69a74 On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:31:16 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:17:41 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > In one of them, removal of the old assignment statement had simply > > been forgotten [1]. For the other two, the EAPI had been assigned by > > an eclass [2], which we consider illegal anyway. > > ...and yet people do it. That and the violations of the HOMEPAGE rule > tell you a lot about what happens when something is made syntactically > valid but supposedly not legal. > ... and this is where repoman helps. broken deps are syntactically valid but not legal either.