From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-66300-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7184C13877A
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:53:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A742DE08E8;
Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:53:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com (mail-vc0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B11FEE08E0
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:53:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hy4so2542263vcb.19
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type;
bh=nsA7SMLQAgX52ftPt0WIoYUgHITBTqareNOsU/iSDuE=;
b=r1Nvc9faQrnKfX+NFOzwWHTjuRYu82HJrx1mDsXqOJb/4mABFmP/YtVgMB9Z3uUSyF
OoElbUuklNerD1/4VBZkv0Pc+Po1z0CzxyY43IkHt9aJOhDtBv0bVoXMlKlIFc7/E2a/
FQ7VKszPzftar5004EX1UB/3Rl4OQuD4P6igx3tWHB7uin4YK64LLsbR3QaHoyxFWBdL
/w/cAcSQMulDTBggCageAMpq1nKSymRnkIPx4ullLdSk8E+GXlSiqkQV7l8wLpWwKa48
SyDmMTHFPQDtEi0eSwgROYVXITuNmFRZjxWSQA9gYHFTSaHr5q5CVZewF2lZj0QIxF27
70BA==
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
X-Received: by 10.52.185.39 with SMTP id ez7mr4430815vdc.7.1403200431768; Thu,
19 Jun 2014 10:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.30.227 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140619170311.GA11784@linux1>
References: <CAGfcS_kix1enpz4uwj5tO-Qeeqrp=8tKWjdMiC1QuUR-g8R4Tg@mail.gmail.com>
<20140619170311.GA11784@linux1>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:53:51 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 53zUvpQ-n3qRCCH-m79YG-2nOro
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_kHZCJr8UBmkVS7_d6a_BFyVN1JwFZaUWFK2Cv08_p7UA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Eclass vs EAPI For Utility Functions (Patching/etc)
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: b738972f-d787-4ee0-93de-7a8a526f7345
X-Archives-Hash: 07c26332981dbd897fb24f930cd5d889
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:03 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I am strongly in favor of the eapi-based approach as well, for all of
> the reasons mentioned in the thread so far.
Good thing your proxy got it right then! :)
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20140617-summary.txt
Rich