-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:09:43 -0700
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
>> In order to allow mixed EAPIs in the profiles, and to avoid having
>> to configure the EAPI in every single layer, each directory of the
>> profile stack should be able to either override or inherit the EAPI
>> value that may have been defined in a previous layer of the profile
>> stack. If no EAPI has been previously defined then it can be assumed
>> to be 0.
> 
> That gets really confusing. Easier to just have an eapi file in every
> directory.

I think you're right. I don't see any really compelling need for
inheritance or override behavior here. If the file is missing from a
particular layer then we can simply assume that the layer's EAPI is 0.

> Are we going to stick a file directly under profiles/ too? Some things
> in there are EAPI dependent... It'd have to stay at 0 for quite a long
> time, of course.

Sure, that seems reasonable. That will allow us to eventually bump
the EAPI for the package.mask and info_pkgs files (those seem to be
the only ones that currently contain dependency atoms).
- --
Thanks,
Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkjoGNUACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOQhACfVK+pE9hPkDMUV/EOu26gB7Zn
UjAAoJwT0L9PneRG4UvwWj2y5n18TV6c
=FlAq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----