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 1KoK6p-0005Th-6L for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:40:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8BEFCE03CC; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:40:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.171]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587E3E03CC for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:40:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so628115wfc.22 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:40:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=3AEzv0vGoi3aJDrttwCfbNlYbK0dBqlG8s4sH6+7+Hk=; b=q+whXMUPepYznlXtP6mJzyb87H5/h8QtnVu/bhkGQFLw3ruvliYCPkQ5Sc92NV0V1v nlZEXHa1qqoudqwYkq9mt8HE+TSlpNtNXOR9Y52zLiQPdCnaa2ag1+F/fWjQknR2RVA2 VN4KBQhffOpHKkfuxz2YukVGX/wRn5jtj9vW8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=ACCCuXrxMGJz38GNyiIsYYaxU4+zNwA1xVNhnSAGqgtM/iMCwl8B3tXP9oGZ5q6/67 Q4/sBnpuJqlbLhAyGSxkRlZzZ8Uwld01zkTMwCFI7wEH//U+1Gcr0GrrBrR9ymNueo3w PsVl9Y/abUzuK6bOewAjzsBQLSEwvTcLVquhE= Received: by 10.141.4.3 with SMTP id g3mr1217257rvi.116.1223653253044; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.145.17 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <90b936c0810100840q4d1793bei18477a6e85815e32@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:40:53 -0500 From: "Jeremy Olexa" Sender: jer.gentoo@gmail.com To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding features to Portage that work on top of any EAPI In-Reply-To: <20081009191526.1f42404e@googlemail.com> 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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20081009174654.GD21770@gentoo.org> <20081009191526.1f42404e@googlemail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9abf87b3d894b327 X-Archives-Salt: 5e5a0e3c-9913-4a92-8368-485b818349e9 X-Archives-Hash: 6395377737ef04bd501a21617ccd421e On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:46:55 +0200 > What's the scope of the changes? I think it'd be easiest to discuss > this if you posted an informal summary describing the differences in > terms of which bits of PMS are affected. Ciaran, others: In a way I feel like we (the Prefix project) are mis-using the EAPI value. If we have something that is designed to work with *any* EAPI, is it really a special EAPI? haubi said something on the gentoo-alt list that made me think about this more: "When an usecase of something is orthogonal to what that thing is designed for, one should consider using a different thing for this usecase." -source unknown Is this PROPERTIES-like information? Is that easily supportable in the PM?