| 1 |
On Sat, 2019-12-14 at 12:29 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > > > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019, David Seifert wrote: |
| 3 |
> > case "${EAPI:-0}" in |
| 4 |
> > - 0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7) |
| 5 |
> > + [01234]) |
| 6 |
> > + die "Unsupported EAPI=${EAPI:-0} (too old) for |
| 7 |
> > ${ECLASS}" |
| 8 |
> > + ;; |
| 9 |
> > + [567]) |
| 10 |
> > ;; |
| 11 |
> > *) |
| 12 |
> > die "Unsupported EAPI=${EAPI} (unknown) for ${ECLASS}" |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I know that this exists in other eclasses as well, but do we really |
| 15 |
> need |
| 16 |
> that distinction in the error message for "too old" and "unknown" |
| 17 |
> EAPIs? |
| 18 |
> It should be pretty clear which case applies there, especially since |
| 19 |
> the |
| 20 |
> message is addressed at developers, not users. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Ulrich |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Also, it makes egencache failures in overlays more descriptive, and |
| 25 |
hence I'd keep it for the time being. |
Archives