| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 20/09/12 02:24 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius |
| 6 |
> <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> I'm biased, so to me just auditing what portage does would be |
| 8 |
>> good enough. :D |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> You also need to audit what Portage did since EAPI 0 was |
| 11 |
> introduced. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
No, I don't think so. What portage does *now* is the important thing |
| 15 |
for EAPI={0,1,2,3,4,5}, not what it has done over the course of history. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 18 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlBbbQMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDeFQD8C1//65PwCKUAM6FVHci7AcoU |
| 21 |
vuzYaUdCMHD1kEKYea0BAIkJYfkKWsmQCWreNjN+qpwflA1Hrpou/rOFfNpcBGHl |
| 22 |
=BJPR |
| 23 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives