On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 19:17 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> inherit eapi 4
>
> Now when the PM is capable of pre-source EAPI detection, it will set
> EAPI before sourcing, eapi.eclass can see EAPI already being set and not
> do the 'exit' in global scope. Or even the PM's inherit-implem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> I think what you are missing is that some people (me included) think
> that the in-file approach is the cleanest and most obvious solution
> (which also happens to not hurt performance). So if you want "bad
> design" to be a
Michael Haubenwallner posted
1243584886.27150.33.ca...@sapc154.salomon.at, excerpted below, on Fri, 29
May 2009 10:14:46 +0200:
> Ohw, the latter would be necessary here, or '4.ebuild' would not be
> found.
s/4.ebuild/4.eclass/ I assume.
> Btw.: What do non-EAPI-aware PMs do with ebuilds using
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 10:42 +, Duncan wrote:
> Michael Haubenwallner posted on Fri, 29
> May 2009 10:14:46 +0200:
>
> > Ohw, the latter would be necessary here, or '4.ebuild' would not be
> > found.
>
> s/4.ebuild/4.eclass/ I assume.
Indeed.
> Except... since an ebuild must presently be
Michael Haubenwallner posted
1243610264.27150.293.ca...@sapc154.salomon.at, excerpted below, on Fri,
29 May 2009 17:17:44 +0200:
> Wouldn't it be possible to avoid both the extension change and another
> extended wait period for new incompatible(*) EAPIs, when we do this
> early and silent exit
Hi,
In the context of my GSOC [1] I need to get GLEP 23 [2] fully
implemented and
this means get ACCEPT_LICENSE used with a default value and bug 152593 [3]
fixed.
= GLEP 23 summary =
Most of GLEP 23 features have already been implemented in portage. Some
since
a long time (at least in stable po
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
It looks like some licenses need acceptance.
I prefer the wording: some software vendors claim that their licenses
must be accepted to use the software. I'm not aware of any law which
requires a license to use software - at least not inside the USA (your
jurisdiction m
On Friday 29 May 2009 04:12:04 Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:28:12 +0200
>
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > This is becoming a rather lengthy email ping pong, but as people seem to
> > be unable to discuss things I had to highlight a few issues there.
>
> I'm sorry to be rude,
Don't be, most
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Joe Peterson wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
>>> No, it's entirely objective. GLEP 55 clearly shows how the filename
>>> based options are objectively better than anything else.
>>
>> But the decision will not be based entirely on objective merits
>> (although I will
