1 |
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:56:05AM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
2 |
> case ${EAPI:-0} in |
3 |
> 2|3|4) ;; |
4 |
> *) DEPEND="EAPI-TOO-OLD" ;; |
5 |
> esac |
6 |
> |
7 |
> why not: |
8 |
> |
9 |
> case ${EAPI:-0} in |
10 |
> 0|1) DEPEND="EAPI-TOO-OLD" ;; |
11 |
> esac |
12 |
|
13 |
Do not go adding invalid DEPEND like that. Make the eclass die |
14 |
instead. |
15 |
|
16 |
Seriously, and this is a general rant based on several years of |
17 |
people adding stupid shit without considering the fallout: |
18 |
|
19 |
Whatever great new little trick you can think of for stuff like |
20 |
this... it's wrong. Use the mechanisms that exist. If policy |
21 |
forbids it, fix the policy, don't come up w/ "clever" hacks around |
22 |
it. Fix the core issue instead. |
23 |
|
24 |
Wouldn't surprise me if portage would accept this and run with it, |
25 |
blowing up at emerge time instead. Pkgcore and paludis however will |
26 |
give you the finger *very* quickly since that's not a valid atom. |
27 |
Don't piss on our parties w/ 'clever' tricks, do the right thing and |
28 |
use a die. |
29 |
|
30 |
People will move their ass a helluva lot quicker when their ebuild |
31 |
breaks than when bones has to go yelling both at the eclass author, |
32 |
and the devs in question about missing deps. |
33 |
|
34 |
Do not add this to the tree. |
35 |
~harring |