On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:07:22 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:45:01 +0100 > Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is one significant problem not covered in the GLEP: If a > > package contains an ebuild with a suffixed extension then all > > developers ever working on that _package_ must use tools that can > > handle such ebuilds, otherwise there will likely be problems > > regarding the Manifest handling due to misclassifications of the > > file extension. > > This isn't a new requirement introduced by the GLEP. That's already > the case with EAPI things. Partially correct. The difference is that the data that the compability check is completely different, so while the requirement of using compatible tools might already exist it's worth to spell out the new meaning of compability. The potential impact is another change, currently if tools couldn't handle specific ebuilds with specific EAPIs they would not (silently) generate wrong data in the Manifest. Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
