On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:06:17 +0100 Peter Alfredsen <loki_...@gentoo.org> wrote: > To be honest I see no good reason for allowing manipulation of it, but > I'm sure other people will tell me why adding this requirement at this > point is wrong
There's not really a good reason to allow manipulating it (and, obviously, with GLEP 55 manipulating it becomes impossible), but since for all current EAPIs it's just defined as a metadata variable that's generated in the same way as things like SLOT, manipulating it is unfortunately legal. > even though no ebuilds in the tree to the best of my knowledge use > EAPI as anything more than a declaration that's placed Just before > inherit, right after the header. People have, in the past, set EAPI inside eclasses. It's stupid and horrible, but they've done it. But here's the thing -- even if we retroactively enforce a new rule requiring it to be specified in a particular way right after the header (which is bad, since it breaks things people have already done), it *still* doesn't let us change global scope behaviour since current package managers don't extract EAPI the horrid way. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
