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 1LclGn-0008Tm-M1 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:47:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 69ED0E02A4; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:47:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.184]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09642E02A4 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:47:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id j3so850641tid.10 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:47:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kzy3yZO8uishFkQwmznTKnYVeDUgKlg6F+12ZgZHT1c=; b=UuWw2Sh3/2cJyNCmq6khBKKbPfoep9LKf6QUYwr/8HaUQuRbZ3G8K/DgwBe1YAz+RC F7Yw0iQWoxY5wY6SzncCBDfHUb+NNvkKv60HwrzHxTc6cEqBI5FgUhiQruk3DMHkR/7j mNyKWkNguYkvvfWk0ek9byDbzklPNMA0Su74s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=VrMyPN8Ogu5bUAX2OpnCr5f9F4YsBr7HgemUBYv+c6i/bYds3BfoVTbhWuJnUDflch owvUbkjoEfkEyaoYB1jMl1NYMQfNY1vlU1Bq7b+1KPBUPCII79pIWRDreCeaPwiYxbeY lBgELz47wgYTvzC0UFWH8SAbxP8U7fa47TgU4= 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 Sender: nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com Received: by 10.110.109.19 with SMTP id h19mr2333287tic.16.1235674056386; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:47:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20090226182024.0cd44cc8@snowmobile> References: <49A472E3.1010204@gentoo.org> <20090226180732.5c95a0ca@snowmobile> <20090226182024.0cd44cc8@snowmobile> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:17:36 +0530 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6f6fd600b17d6c7f Message-ID: <8b4c83ad0902261047o126a7ba5m9a45349ebf196733@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives From: Nirbheek Chauhan To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: b1f71f14-9f6e-428d-a82d-82e69ee3ec5f X-Archives-Hash: 9b95569296c7ebf86d52dbde1f30a78b On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:07:32 +0000 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> There's a less extreme variant on this that's slightly cleaner, and >> with appropriate weaseling is also less messy. Simply add the >> following very carefully worded additional requirement for future >> EAPIs, and retroactively impose it upon current ones: >> >> If EAPI is to be set, it must be set strictly before any global scope >> command or package manager defined function is called. Once set, EAPI >> must not be set to a different value. > > ...not quite weasely enough. Also needs: > > and before any package manager defined variables are used or package > manager set shell behaviour is relied upon. > Is the following a stricter subset of your wording? -- "EAPI must be set in an ebuild as the first non-comment line, and thereafter must not be set to a different value" I'm asking because it would be simpler for users and devs to understand, even if it is a subset. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan