| 1 |
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:41:09 -0800 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 03/09/2012 07:21 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 5 |
> > The advantage that the eapi function has over a comment is that |
| 6 |
> > it's not magic -- it's just normal bash syntax. So we've addressed |
| 7 |
> > that issue at a small performance cost (we're really only sourcing |
| 8 |
> > the ebuild up to 'exit'). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Also consider the case where a user syncs after not having updated |
| 11 |
> for a couple of months, and the tree contains some ebuilds with EAPIs |
| 12 |
> that are not supported by the currently installed package manager. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> In this case, when resolving dependencies and filtering ebuilds based |
| 15 |
> on whether or not their EAPI is supported, spawning bash once per |
| 16 |
> ebuild is much more costly than the alternatives. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
isnt the whole point of the proposal to get eapi without sourcing ? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
so that we can use new bash features at local or global scope without |
| 21 |
risking that people with an old bash get syntax errors trying to get |
| 22 |
the eapi |
Archives