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 B86FD138010 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DEAF1E0B1C; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:06:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F23F1E0AFE for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.4.5] (blfd-4d083900.pool.mediaWays.net [77.8.57.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D59133DD93; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:06:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <515C6197.8010409@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:06:31 +0200 From: hasufell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130314 Thunderbird/17.0.4 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 CC: qa@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function? References: <20130403111437.4c1e0aa6@pomiocik.lan> <515C219A.7090300@gentoo.org> <20130403162948.65e37ffa@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130403162948.65e37ffa@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 6e7c9b6f-9266-41b7-a1af-6a3c698c71e6 X-Archives-Hash: 810a559f82cd6679732fc39a9f986583 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/03/2013 05:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 hasufell > wrote: >> You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass >> already uses that name with epatch. > > base.eclass should have died a horrible death a long time ago. A > new EAPI is an excellent opportunity to ban it. > That is not possible without the agreement of the eclass maintainers. So you cannot just "ban" an eclass. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRXGGXAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWz7DMH/0crt8ANEKsqp6WsB4mAs7Vr 7g7Q+nGdvsXyfXVaU9o65S7hFANElXUsYYt5pyOliO2bQVKyGxIxKDO5WPdcJfVO rEwEtCLAJrrknMa8TlHol7tAkcXCCCFlM0OZYvGJFJPaaOTwq7bRhdqEN2xoGOJy xW+aDLuhmS38dxGHiRP8s3BsD/8vuNDDCETOKfbid9SSjoB3HlhzM/4Um5bzsu+y XwUQLU+VndcSqa45PHYl8ai9JFxRDmwNSutA7jkzJ2ogksJ1rbZ5bzIUyTxnpyqu 2qbfcEjD0UQ9OF80p14OJzJdxOzYu9p0ATH37iVXgSvYQdGOle0Y2IUctYd60p0= =MnS5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----