Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:56:12 +0000:
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html >> >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.txt > > Haven't read the previous discussion, apologies if this has been > clarified already, but I think it would be good to answer the following > question in the GLEP: > > Why (in terms of your GLEP) are you still allowing ebuilds to set EAPI > inside the ebuild? > > It seems that one approach you might take is to move the EAPI selection > into the filename and remove it from the ebuild itself, and it's not > clear to me why your proposal isn't exactly that. Actually, that was clarified in this new version. Is the following (from the Application section) sufficient? Maybe pre-source EAPI and post- source EAPI aren't clearly enough defined? (Their def is in the first paragraph under specification.) <quote> Note that the developers should only set the pre-source EAPI. The process described above is only necessary to avoid undefined behaviour in corner cases and to retain backwards compatibility. QA tools may warn if the post-source EAPI is set at all, thus helping with the transition to the new format. </quote> As I had read the first version, that leapt out at me. Did you just miss it or do you still believe it needs clarified further? -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
