From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF71138010 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:42:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F253CE08A4; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:41:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1314CE0507 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:41:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (213-238-104-238.adsl.inetia.pl [213.238.104.238]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73FEF33C88F; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:41:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:42:08 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] HDEPEND (host dependencies for cross-compilation) for EAPI 5? Message-ID: <20120906104208.53532a6e@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120906093129.6a37147f@googlemail.com> References: <50411874.4060204@gentoo.org> <20120831214611.088b3f50@googlemail.com> <50469795.2070901@gentoo.org> <20120905181543.5394051e@pomiocik.lan> <20120906065851.4d20e750@googlemail.com> <20120906093925.77ca0854@pomiocik.lan> <20120906090040.11c07981@googlemail.com> <20120906102755.7cf36ca5@pomiocik.lan> <20120906093129.6a37147f@googlemail.com> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.11; 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-SHA256; boundary="Sig_/TM6yJOJrbXIwpvgqWHxh9nB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 5efddbe9-6291-4333-9b4f-2b9087798c48 X-Archives-Hash: dce73ac78426aeb8d360f35b942e6613 --Sig_/TM6yJOJrbXIwpvgqWHxh9nB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:31:29 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:27:55 +0200 > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > But what I was saying is that I dislike the implicit 'no label =3D=3D > > build+run'. It's unclear, very unclear. > >=20 > > Why the heck: > >=20 > > ( foo/bar ) > >=20 > > introduces another label than: > >=20 > > use? ( foo/bar ) > >=20 > > ? >=20 > Labels are propagated into child blocks, so it doesn't introduce a new > label. I think you've misunderstood something here... Right, too many ()s for me. Then my argument that I want us to require explicit label at start of global () still holds. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/TM6yJOJrbXIwpvgqWHxh9nB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAlBIYeAACgkQfXuS5UK5QB2H1QP9FpyXeJGwcHw0sjkSM1Bd97Mr vurjOJZH0DNnZUMLcFBC53ZQemrmXvkSfgstghNx/mrcZ/LUwleougaD22upfqeU T8PRx09ZMqrQ6wHGoYqWS0B7nI9NHLMH2wo5UvP/2dfdNambd7yGWhIWyMry1i9u x/ECGkHthghO9EhSN3c= =xmFI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/TM6yJOJrbXIwpvgqWHxh9nB--