1 |
On 03/09/2012 07:51 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:41:09 -0800 |
3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
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 addressed |
8 |
>>> that issue at a small performance cost (we're really only sourcing |
9 |
>>> 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 EAPIs |
13 |
>> that are not supported by the currently installed package manager. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> In this case, when resolving dependencies and filtering ebuilds based |
16 |
>> on whether or not their EAPI is supported, spawning bash once per |
17 |
>> ebuild is much more costly than the alternatives. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> isnt the whole point of the proposal to get eapi without sourcing ? |
20 |
> |
21 |
> so that we can use new bash features at local or global scope without |
22 |
> risking that people with an old bash get syntax errors trying to get |
23 |
> the eapi |
24 |
|
25 |
Right. Michael has lost sight of the goal and is moving off on a tangent. |
26 |
-- |
27 |
Thanks, |
28 |
Zac |