On Friday 17 October 2008, Robert Buchholz wrote:
On Monday 13 October 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
It's a retroactive change to EAPI 0 that requires changes from
package managers and has security implications... Robert isn't
requesting that we specify and mandate existing behaviour here,
On Monday 13 October 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:42:21 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that this is an EAPI=0 change. Since EAPI=1 and
EAPI=2 are just differences to EAPI=0, they wouldn't be voted on.
Since EAPI=0 isn't actually
On 21:03 Thu 09 Oct , Robert Buchholz wrote:
I would like:
* everyone to comment on the change and propose changes to the wording
* council to vote on this change to EAPI-0, -1 and -2.
It seems to me that this is an EAPI=0 change. Since EAPI=1 and EAPI=2
are just differences to EAPI=0,
On Monday, 13. October 2008 19:42:21 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Since EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote
either. As it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst
package-manager developers and PMS editors.
So, EAPI-2 had to be approved before it could be used in the
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:42:21 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that this is an EAPI=0 change. Since EAPI=1 and EAPI=2
are just differences to EAPI=0, they wouldn't be voted on. Since
EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote either. As
it's a draft
On 20:20 Mon 13 Oct , Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
On Monday, 13. October 2008 19:42:21 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Since EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote
either. As it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst
package-manager developers and PMS editors.
So,
Hello,
currently, PMS section 10.1 states:
Some functions may assume that their initial working directory is
set to a particular location; these are noted below.
If no initial working directory is mandated, it may be set to
anything and the ebuild must not rely upon a particular location
