On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:06:17 +0100
Peter Alfredsen <loki_val@g.o> wrote:
> To be honest I see no good reason for allowing manipulation of it, but
> I'm sure other people will tell me why adding this requirement at this
> point is wrong

There's not really a good reason to allow manipulating it (and,
obviously, with GLEP 55 manipulating it becomes impossible), but since
for all current EAPIs it's just defined as a metadata variable that's
generated in the same way as things like SLOT, manipulating it is
unfortunately legal.

> even though no ebuilds in the tree to the best of my knowledge use
> EAPI as anything more than a declaration that's placed Just before
> inherit, right after the header.

People have, in the past, set EAPI inside eclasses. It's stupid and
horrible, but they've done it.

But here's the thing -- even if we retroactively enforce a new rule
requiring it to be specified in a particular way right after the header
(which is bad, since it breaks things people have already done), it
*still* doesn't let us change global scope behaviour since current
package managers don't extract EAPI the horrid way.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh