1 |
Daniel Drake <dsd@g.o> posted 476D4FBC.1040203@g.o, |
2 |
excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:56:12 +0000: |
3 |
|
4 |
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.txt |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Haven't read the previous discussion, apologies if this has been |
9 |
> clarified already, but I think it would be good to answer the following |
10 |
> question in the GLEP: |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Why (in terms of your GLEP) are you still allowing ebuilds to set EAPI |
13 |
> inside the ebuild? |
14 |
> |
15 |
> It seems that one approach you might take is to move the EAPI selection |
16 |
> into the filename and remove it from the ebuild itself, and it's not |
17 |
> clear to me why your proposal isn't exactly that. |
18 |
|
19 |
Actually, that was clarified in this new version. Is the following (from |
20 |
the Application section) sufficient? Maybe pre-source EAPI and post- |
21 |
source EAPI aren't clearly enough defined? (Their def is in the first |
22 |
paragraph under specification.) |
23 |
|
24 |
<quote> |
25 |
|
26 |
Note that the developers should only set the pre-source EAPI. The process |
27 |
described above is only necessary to avoid undefined behaviour in corner |
28 |
cases and to retain backwards compatibility. |
29 |
|
30 |
QA tools may warn if the post-source EAPI is set at all, thus helping with |
31 |
the transition to the new format. |
32 |
|
33 |
</quote> |
34 |
|
35 |
As I had read the first version, that leapt out at me. Did you just miss |
36 |
it or do you still believe it needs clarified further? |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
40 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
41 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |