On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:31:16 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:17:41 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > 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. > > ...and yet people do it. That and the violations of the HOMEPAGE rule > tell you a lot about what happens when something is made syntactically > valid but supposedly not legal. > ... and this is where repoman helps. broken deps are syntactically valid but not legal either.
