| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 01:11:34PM +0200, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 5 |
> David Leverton wrote: |
| 6 |
> > But the point isn't that we want to be able to do those things. The point is |
| 7 |
> > that if the EAPI is in the filename, it's blatantly obvious that it has to be |
| 8 |
> > static, but adding strange and unintuitive restrictions on which shell |
| 9 |
> > constructs can be used is, well, strange and unintuitive. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Except that we aren't talking about strange and unintuitive. All we are |
| 12 |
> saying is basically documenting current usage: put a line with EAPI= |
| 13 |
> near the top. That's very straighforward and intuitive. Plus, it works. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Agreed. The way I have always usedEAPI is, you set it once at the top |
| 16 |
of the EBUILD and you are done with it. As far as I know, there is no |
| 17 |
reason to change EAPI once it is set, and eclasses shouldn't be changing |
| 18 |
it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
- -- |
| 21 |
William Hubbs |
| 22 |
gentoo accessibility team lead |
| 23 |
williamh@g.o |
| 24 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 25 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkoPAX8ACgkQblQW9DDEZTizJACfarJ8hZh4WQ7GC0kuraqTba9u |
| 28 |
FhkAn29jolc1O5D/jMWWA6TJaJcUZtbQ |
| 29 |
=529O |
| 30 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives