[gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

[Steven J Long]

Duncan wrote:

> Tobias Klausmann <klausman@g.o> posted
>> I was under the impression that it's illegal to change/set the EAPI
>> after using inherit.
>
> The short answer, based on my understanding of posts to this point, would
> be that it's illegal for Gentoo (in-tree, council decided), but not
> necessarily for all the overlays and Gentoo based projects out there.
>
> On the one hand, as a result of the above, Gentoo doesn't have to concern
> itself with the others and can decide what's best for the Gentoo tree and
> dev-sponsored overlays presumably targeted at eventual tree inclusion.
> On the other, regardless of what Gentoo decides, PMs wishing widest
> compatibility must be prepared for it anyway.  If I'm not mistaken,
> paludis has the widest deployment footprint both in practice and by goal
> at this point, so naturally, those developing it have broader concerns
> than just Gentoo.
>
Well is it okay for the Gentoo developer list to be focussed firstly on
Gentoo product and solving the real issues people actually face as opposed
to non-issues like typing in a version specifier?

Further, if there is a valid use-case for setting EAPI after inherit, could
you (or someone else) explain what it is and why Gentoo, or indeed anyone
working on a Gentoo-based product, should care? ATM it looks like a classic
case of obfuscation; it's frankly well below par to post code that isn't
allowed and then claim it as a use-case requiring such massive changes.

I'd ask you also to consider prefix-portage when you assess the "deployment
footprint" (however you're coming to that conclusion.)
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)