On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 06:26:02 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2012-08-28 00:19:28 Michał Górny napisał(a):
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/gx86/eclass/boost-utils.eclass
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
>> > +# Copyright 1999-2012 Gentoo Foundation
>> > +# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
>> > +# $Header: $
>> > +
>> > +if [[ ! ${_BOOST_ECLASS} ]]; then
>> > +
>> > +# @ECLASS: boost-utils.eclass
>> > +# @MAINTAINER:
>> > +# mgo...@gentoo.org
>>
>> It is better to copy list of maintainers from
>> gentoo-x86/dev-libs/boost/metadata.xml.
>>
>> > +# @BLURB: helper functions for packages using Boost C++ library
>> > +# @DESCRIPTION:
>> > +# Helper functions to be used when building packages using the
>> > Boost C++ +# library collection.
>> > +
>> > +case ${EAPI:-0} in
>> > + 0|1|2|3|4) ;;
>> > + *) die "${ECLASS}.eclass API in EAPI ${EAPI} not yet
>> > established." +esac
>>
>> Please accept all EAPIs.
>
> These are EAPIs which are allowed throughout the tree, sorry. Feel free
> to ping Council about adding non-standard EAPIs to eclasses.
>
Is the eclass likely to be incompatible with future EAPIs? If not, I
think it is reasonable to remove this check.
