| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:06:31 +0200
|
| 5 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
> On 04/03/2013 05:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 7 |
> > On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 hasufell <hasufell@g.o> |
| 8 |
> > wrote: |
| 9 |
> >> You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass |
| 10 |
> >> already uses that name with epatch. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > base.eclass should have died a horrible death a long time ago. A |
| 13 |
> > new EAPI is an excellent opportunity to ban it. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> That is not possible without the agreement of the eclass maintainers. |
| 17 |
> So you cannot just "ban" an eclass. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
QA certainly can, and should. Or failing that, the Council can step in.
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
- --
|
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh
|
| 23 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 24 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
iEYEARECAAYFAlFcYVIACgkQ96zL6DUtXhG7nwCcCLClcG0etUSBuFAupj1nmJMw
|
| 27 |
iQIAoKxQMWsqEKwp7NRTUqAPbQNIeXFk
|
| 28 |
=33rM
|
| 29 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives