On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:45:48 +0800 Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > And again, you show that you don't understand what's going on. EAPI > > is only specified once except where developers screw up. The GLEP > > merely moves the EAPI to being set *before* the metadata is > > generated, which removes all the restrictions that having EAPI as > > part of the ebuild's content imposes. > > So, you are saying if developers screw up, then the EAPI could be > specified twice, namely in file name and in file content. > But why should we tolerate that?
Uh, you don't. You just specify how the package manager handles it because there's no room for undefined behaviour here. > And as I have said before, I don't see why having EAPI as part of the > ebuild's content has any restrictions. > You can extrace the definition from file content no matter how it is > defined using whatever way you like. Ok. What's the EAPI for the following ebuild that's written in an EAPI that hasn't been published yet? And how would I extract it? # Copyright blah blah import vim-spell using language="en" -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
