Archives
Archives
| From: | Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) | ||
| Date: | Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:19:26 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20090223221915.108441bd@snowcone | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) by Ryan Hill |
||
| 1 | On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:15:25 -0600 |
| 2 | Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 | > Can we ban eclasses from setting EAPI? Is there any case where it |
| 4 | > would be sane? |
| 5 | |
| 6 | It's already banned from a QA perspective, but from a package manager |
| 7 | perspective people have done it in the past and possibly still do do |
| 8 | it, and the spec doesn't forbid it. |
| 9 | |
| 10 | -- |
| 11 | Ciaran McCreesh |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) | Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o> |