>>>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:59:33 -0500
> Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@g.o> wrote:
>> In light of the fact that all 29758 ebuilds in portage already
>> satisfy the proposed whitespace, quoting, and indenting constrains
>> on EAPI assignment, the probability of problems appears to be
>> vanishingly small. And "vanishingly small" and can be reduced to
>> zero by simply adding a check to repoman.

> Because they were recently changed, presumably...

> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402167#c36

> We had this discussion the last time around too, and people were
> told to assign in a particular way. As you can see, it didn't work.

Sorry, but this is nonsense (or rather FUD). Indeed we had 3 ebuilds
(0.01%) in the Portage tree where parsing resulted in an EAPI
different from the one in metadata.

In one of them, removal of the old assignment statement had simply
been forgotten [1]. For the other two, the EAPI had been assigned by
an eclass [2], which we consider illegal anyway.

Ulrich


[1] <http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/dev-ml/bin-prot/bin-prot-2.0.3.ebuild?r1=1.1&r2=1.2>
[2] <http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/eclass/apache-2.eclass?r1=1.26&r2=1.27>