Archives
Archives
| From: | Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds | ||
| Date: | Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:33:32 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20120308193116.6f06f81d@googlemail.com | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds by Ulrich Mueller |
||
| 1 | On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:17:41 +0100 |
| 2 | Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 | > In one of them, removal of the old assignment statement had simply |
| 4 | > been forgotten [1]. For the other two, the EAPI had been assigned by |
| 5 | > an eclass [2], which we consider illegal anyway. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | ...and yet people do it. That and the violations of the HOMEPAGE rule |
| 8 | tell you a lot about what happens when something is made syntactically |
| 9 | valid but supposedly not legal. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | -- |
| 12 | Ciaran McCreesh |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds | Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> |