On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Steven J. Long <sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote: > So which way do you actually prefer? > > You appear to be arguing for, and implementing, common code by EAPI, > in the rest of your mail. Since that's always been the point of > them, based on developer consensus about what is truly essential, > and what is only needed for a subset of the tree, that's fine by me.
This is all becoming moot since the Council just voted on this earlier this week, nearly unanimously bringing in user patches. However, I believe he was advocating going with an EAPI in this case, but offering alternatives. While brainstorming the options I was thinking that you could almost have an EAPI-like eclass. That is, instead of declaring an EAPI every ebuild could just source an EAPI-foo eclass which basically does the same thing. Of course, this would be somewhat less flexible than what we do today - if we went as far as being able to determine EAPI without sourcing an ebuild (no, I'm not bringing back that debate now) then having EAPI in the PM lets you change the ebuild format in almost entirely arbitrary ways over time. There is nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate in a thread like this. Hopefully the Council members can weigh the arguments on their own. :) Rich
