On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:43:10 +0100
Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have updated the GLEP, hopefully it is less confusing now and hence the
discussion
will be more technical.
Still doesn't address my concerns, namely:
- silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:33:51 +0100
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is
a blocker for me)
That already happened with EAPI 1 and slot deps.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Monday 31 of December 2007 15:33:51 Marius Mauch wrote:
Still doesn't address my concerns, namely:
- silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is a
blocker for me)
And what is the reason for not doing exactly that? Seems logical to me. And
btw. slot deps added in
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:40:57 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:33:51 +0100
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is
a blocker for me)
That already happened with EAPI 1 and slot deps.
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
I have updated the GLEP, hopefully it is less confusing now and hence
the discussion will be more technical.
As I still didn't get the ok to commit from our glep folks, read the
most current version here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 18:56:12 Daniel Drake wrote:
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
