Duncan wrote: > Tobias Klausmann <klaus...@gentoo.org> posted >> I was under the impression that it's illegal to change/set the EAPI >> after using inherit. > > The short answer, based on my understanding of posts to this point, would > be that it's illegal for Gentoo (in-tree, council decided), but not > necessarily for all the overlays and Gentoo based projects out there. > > On the one hand, as a result of the above, Gentoo doesn't have to concern > itself with the others and can decide what's best for the Gentoo tree and > dev-sponsored overlays presumably targeted at eventual tree inclusion. > On the other, regardless of what Gentoo decides, PMs wishing widest > compatibility must be prepared for it anyway. If I'm not mistaken, > paludis has the widest deployment footprint both in practice and by goal > at this point, so naturally, those developing it have broader concerns > than just Gentoo. > Well is it okay for the Gentoo developer list to be focussed firstly on Gentoo product and solving the real issues people actually face as opposed to non-issues like typing in a version specifier?
Further, if there is a valid use-case for setting EAPI after inherit, could you (or someone else) explain what it is and why Gentoo, or indeed anyone working on a Gentoo-based product, should care? ATM it looks like a classic case of obfuscation; it's frankly well below par to post code that isn't allowed and then claim it as a use-case requiring such massive changes. I'd ask you also to consider prefix-portage when you assess the "deployment footprint" (however you're coming to that conclusion.) -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
