1 |
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:31:16 +0000 |
2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:17:41 +0100 |
5 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > In one of them, removal of the old assignment statement had simply |
7 |
> > been forgotten [1]. For the other two, the EAPI had been assigned by |
8 |
> > an eclass [2], which we consider illegal anyway. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> ...and yet people do it. That and the violations of the HOMEPAGE rule |
11 |
> tell you a lot about what happens when something is made syntactically |
12 |
> valid but supposedly not legal. |
13 |
> |
14 |
|
15 |
... and this is where repoman helps. |
16 |
broken deps are syntactically valid but not legal either. |