| 1 |
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:54:38 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:51:11 +0100 |
| 5 |
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > 2. (with myeclass.eclass containing EAPI=2) |
| 7 |
> > > ----- |
| 8 |
> > > EAPI=1 |
| 9 |
> > > inherit myeclass |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Invalid |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> QA violation, but legal and a pain in the ass. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I didn't think it was a brainy thing to do, but I can't find anything |
| 16 |
saying it isn't allowed. It probably shouldn't be. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> > > 3. (with myeclass.eclass containing EAPI=2) |
| 19 |
> > > ----- |
| 20 |
> > > EAPI=5 |
| 21 |
> > > inherit myeclass |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Invalid |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> QA violation, but legal and a pain in the ass. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Can we ban eclasses from setting EAPI? Is there any case where it |
| 29 |
would be sane? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
| 34 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
| 35 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives