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 1K6JBB-0001HO-LX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:47:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C5AB5E04FA; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cp-out7.libero.it (cp-out7.libero.it [212.52.84.107]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E37E04FA for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.6] (151.57.14.216) by cp-out7.libero.it (8.5.014) id 484D2FE7003BD3E1 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:47:26 +0200 Message-ID: <484F66BF.2040002@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:46:39 +0200 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080601) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] extending existing EAPI semantics References: <20080611025622.GA9494@seldon.metaweb.com> <20080611042004.6d411d8e@googlemail.com> <20080611033311.GC9494@seldon.metaweb.com> <20080611043801.1b4954d7@googlemail.com> <20080611041036.GE9494@seldon.metaweb.com> <484F53D3.1060003@pioto.org> <20080611051621.GF9494@seldon.metaweb.com> <20080611062231.5f935274@googlemail.com> <20080611053341.GG9494@seldon.metaweb.com> <20080611063722.6092077b@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20080611063722.6092077b@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2f2af8a1-b70f-4544-aa95-d0f7aa7217ab X-Archives-Hash: b2cc5037dfa3a45fac1fcdb824c5a15f Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:33:41 -0700 > Brian Harring wrote: >> Lay out how .006/.6 would work properly *per* eapi. As I clarified >> in my last email, the master would vary dependant on the eapi- which >> isn't valid unless you're retroactively overriding the versioning >> rules of an eapi. > > "Must be a superset" being wrong does not mean "entirely arbitrary > changes are OK" is right. You have actual usecases (eventually not thin air), which is your counterproposal that works for them? lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list