| 1 |
On Tuesday 04 March 2014 14:16:11 Ralph Sennhauser wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:12:06 -0500 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Some EAPI changes are easier than others. This one was only from |
| 6 |
> > non-banned to banned because we haven't gotten around to banning EAPI |
| 7 |
> > 0 yet. I'm all for doing that for non-toolchain ebuilds until we |
| 8 |
> > figure out what to do with the toolchain. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> What toolchain is allowed to do the rest of the tree is as well. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Well, we can mask/remove/modify "everything else" without too much horrible |
| 13 |
stuff happening, but e.g. masking all of gcc because "ebuild doesn't follow |
| 14 |
policy" will not have any reasonable results. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
So for now we have the toolchain exception, until we can get things patched up |
| 17 |
and tested enough. |
Archives