>>>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:59:33 -0500 > Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetrom...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> In light of the fact that all 29758 ebuilds in portage already >> satisfy the proposed whitespace, quoting, and indenting constrains >> on EAPI assignment, the probability of problems appears to be >> vanishingly small. And "vanishingly small" and can be reduced to >> zero by simply adding a check to repoman.
> Because they were recently changed, presumably... > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402167#c36 > We had this discussion the last time around too, and people were > told to assign in a particular way. As you can see, it didn't work. Sorry, but this is nonsense (or rather FUD). Indeed we had 3 ebuilds (0.01%) in the Portage tree where parsing resulted in an EAPI different from the one in metadata. In one of them, removal of the old assignment statement had simply been forgotten [1]. For the other two, the EAPI had been assigned by an eclass [2], which we consider illegal anyway. Ulrich [1] <http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/dev-ml/bin-prot/bin-prot-2.0.3.ebuild?r1=1.1&r2=1.2> [2] <http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/eclass/apache-2.eclass?r1=1.26&r2=1.27>
