| 1 |
On Sunday 18 July 2010 04:54:43 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 18-07-2010 00:58, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:56:05AM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> case ${EAPI:-0} in |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> 2|3|4) ;; |
| 7 |
> >> *) DEPEND="EAPI-TOO-OLD" ;; |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> esac |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> why not: |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> case ${EAPI:-0} in |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> 0|1) DEPEND="EAPI-TOO-OLD" ;; |
| 16 |
> >> |
| 17 |
> >> esac |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Alexis, |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> the problem with your alternative is that it's "too clever" and won't |
| 22 |
> die/kill/stop the processing of the eclass for newer EAPIs that at any |
| 23 |
> point in time no one can be sure will be compatible with the current |
| 24 |
> eclass design. |
| 25 |
> That's why it has been agreed that eclasses should specifically list all |
| 26 |
> supported EAPI versions and die/kill/stop on all other EAPI versions. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Fair enough. Why is EAPI 4 in that list then ? Has it been approved/finalized |
| 29 |
yet ? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Alexis. |
Archives