| 1 |
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:40:05 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, David Leverton wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I think the logic behind that is that an EAPI defined outside PMS |
| 5 |
> > wouldn't be bound by PMS's rules anyway, and the EAPIs defined |
| 6 |
> > inside PMS are explicitly listed so there's not much point giving a |
| 7 |
> > general syntactic rule as well [...] |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If we follow this logic, then the following sentence should be removed |
| 10 |
> from PMS: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> "EAPIs whose value starts with the string paludis- are reserved for |
| 13 |
> experimental use by the Paludis package manager." |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Don't tell anyone, but that's mostly just in there because some people |
| 16 |
insisted that EAPIs were numbers (and thus comparable), so I wanted an |
| 17 |
explicit mention of one that wasn't. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives