On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:54:38 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:51:11 +0100 > Luca Barbato <lu_z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > 2. (with myeclass.eclass containing EAPI=2) > > > ----- > > > EAPI=1 > > > inherit myeclass > > > > Invalid > > QA violation, but legal and a pain in the ass. I didn't think it was a brainy thing to do, but I can't find anything saying it isn't allowed. It probably shouldn't be. > > > 3. (with myeclass.eclass containing EAPI=2) > > > ----- > > > EAPI=5 > > > inherit myeclass > > > > Invalid > > QA violation, but legal and a pain in the ass. > Can we ban eclasses from setting EAPI? Is there any case where it would be sane? -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
