| 1 |
Michael Haubenwallner <haubi@g.o> posted |
| 2 |
1243610264.27150.293.camel@×××××××××××××××.at, excerpted below, on Fri, |
| 3 |
29 May 2009 17:17:44 +0200: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Wouldn't it be possible to avoid both the extension change and another |
| 6 |
> extended wait period for new incompatible(*) EAPIs, when we do this |
| 7 |
> early and silent exit hack for unsupported ebuilds with old PMs that |
| 8 |
> still do full interpretation for EAPI detection? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Possibly. I forgot about the context (the inherit eapi.eclass hack) when |
| 11 |
I wrote the previous (until /after/ I posted, naturally, probably when |
| 12 |
you noticed that 4.ebuild thing too, of course =:^). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
But the possibility had been proposed before and I don't remember what |
| 15 |
came of it, nor have I been following close enough to know if there's |
| 16 |
another caveat somewhere that shoots down the eapi.eclass hack, or not. |
| 17 |
I'm sure someone else will supply the reason it didn't go anywhere. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 21 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 22 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives