From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-42116-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1OhPaF-0005CW-6s
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:15:47 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E2525E0783;
	Fri,  6 Aug 2010 16:15:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ew0-f53.google.com (mail-ew0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EE0E0767
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri,  6 Aug 2010 16:15:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so3531963ewy.40
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 09:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to
         :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=fjacunc2iEEF9Ro1cUKAhNOR2iScEAMfMZl4v2Af0sk=;
        b=Ff3OSs20P8N64lav9tL/SmRr/nCuHSaLICCIfCMUwOVdRBTGBKI79depNZR/I2Z7UP
         9SmR/MhYBEHbfX0brsqw6NHCPZYDmN/Vgsv7Nherc26z/tnMVDLvuw7CD6384gSOTDj2
         iOBxn1TTKWPFvEEqY3TpESZHOBoO1LpB1W1Zo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=OmQq1MHzxLl+wA06LllNlrG8xJ47CqqmnvdE2F+INuF8kPBTVNDkhNaAklOwRsnnX9
         jDTR0pmBVdym+SkYW07x2C12pdzXCS6WyDP9GFrCehVdKj968DrQP4BIEvKzyXK9IylM
         X2WWmu1ARgtdTqeHbunmzC0Jvdv5vXvfdqqlY=
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.213.3.83 with SMTP id 19mr4453857ebm.99.1281111315715; Fri, 06 
	Aug 2010 09:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.29.74 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 09:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20100805032702.GG12708@hrair.al.intel.com>
References: <4C569638.9000407@gentoo.org>
	<20100802211517.1f207d31@snowcone>
	<4C573EBB.3080005@gentoo.org>
	<20100805032702.GG12708@hrair.al.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:15:15 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimPjgh15fNtGcsCY21KVnU6Dia56hkkwBR0KRPm@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Reviving GLEP33
From: David Leverton <levertond@googlemail.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: f60037bf-ddbe-4737-b191-fb21d892632c
X-Archives-Hash: 3a9e175212421986ba295397128fdbc3

On 5 August 2010 04:27, Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> If an EAPI adds a new global function that cannot set/influence EAPI,
> PM's that don't support that EAPI will spit complaints about 'missing
> command' during sourcing- however the PM will still see the EAPI value
> is one it knows it doesn't support, and act accordingly.

You're suggesting a system based around ebuilds running commands that
don't exist and ignoring the errors, which is a pretty blatant hack.
While I don't think it's /absolutely/ out of the question, as I said
earlier, I can see why some people would exclude it from consideration
entirely.