1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 09/03/12 10:41 AM, Zac Medico wrote: |
5 |
> On 03/09/2012 07:21 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
6 |
>> The advantage that the eapi function has over a comment is that |
7 |
>> it's not magic -- it's just normal bash syntax. So we've |
8 |
>> addressed that issue at a small performance cost (we're really |
9 |
>> only sourcing the ebuild up to 'exit'). |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Also consider the case where a user syncs after not having updated |
12 |
> for a couple of months, and the tree contains some ebuilds with |
13 |
> EAPIs that are not supported by the currently installed package |
14 |
> manager. |
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
IIRC we get this already, when the EAPI isn't supported by the version |
18 |
of portage installed -- upgrading really old systems won't allow an |
19 |
emerge of python-2.7 due to a too-new EAPI, and python-2.7 is needed |
20 |
to upgrade to the newer portage. |
21 |
|
22 |
I don't see how the EAPI check itself failing and thereby excluding an |
23 |
ebuild is much different than the specified EAPI excluding it..? |
24 |
Either way, the end user is going to have issues if they don't keep |
25 |
their portage up to date. |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
30 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
31 |
|
32 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAk9aJ0QACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2tTAEA7iUgDOCaGoQhz1dXukQ/a3lY |
33 |
rsdqewd2DYZWtsv+3XoA/iRVe+qf4HXdkWTchFRHlolaTJechz6AZCzKY/sNdu4w |
34 |
=1e/8 |
35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |