Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Erik Mackdanz wrote: > Kristian Fiskerstrand writes: >> inherited eclasses. having a whitelist in place and die if eclass is not >> updated to handle it solves it. >> >> Thoughts? comments? cookies? threats? > > Wouldn't a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-06 Thread Erik Mackdanz
Kristian Fiskerstrand writes: > inherited eclasses. having a whitelist in place and die if eclass is not > updated to handle it solves it. > > Thoughts? comments? cookies? threats? Wouldn't a blacklist be more practical than a whitelist? root# cat

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-06 Thread Michał Górny
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 09:19:42 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > > > I believe you're overthinking it, if we make it a guideline to include a > > section of the eclass (as many already have) that does e.g

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-06 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 09/06/2016 03:38 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 06/09/16 14:35, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 09/06/2016 03:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand >>> wrote: I believe you're overthinking it, if we make it a guideline to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-06 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 09/06/2016 03:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> >> I believe you're overthinking it, if we make it a guideline to include a >> section of the eclass (as many already have) that does e.g (take this >> for example

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-06 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 09/06/2016 12:44 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:03:36 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 >> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> >>> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-06 Thread Kent Fredric
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:03:36 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > > I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or > > strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-05 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:45:30 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Alexis Ballier > wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:19:16 +0200 > > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > > >> On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-05 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:19:16 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > >> On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier >> > wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-05 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 14:58:29 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:20:29 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:19:16 +0200 > > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > > > > On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-05 Thread Michał Górny
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or > strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it has been > tested for in order to ease testing when introducing new EAPIs. > > We

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-05 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:20:29 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:19:16 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > > On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-05 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:19:16 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier > > wrote: > >> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 > >> Kristian Fiskerstrand

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-02 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 >> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> >>> Hi Devs, >>> >>> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Eclasses and EAPI

2016-09-02 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > Hi Devs, > > I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or > strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it has been > tested for in order to ease testing when introducing new