On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:56:04 +0100
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:
> > That you're bringing ebuild.sh into this shows you still haven't
> > worked out how the process works. There is no need to use ebuild.sh
> > (which is a very good thing, because launching bash is
> > slooooooooooooow) when there's valid metadata.
> 
> it there is a valid metadata you have everything there already and
> you don't have to parse the ebuild so...

Except you can't tell whether the metadata is valid unless you already
know the EAPI. As you have already been told.

> >>> So you have patches for Portage? Please show them.
> >> Up there what's enough to check the viability for the solution.
> > 
> > No, it's completely wrong. ebuild.sh has nothing to do with this.
> 
> Is there another place in portage that extracts the EAPI value?

Yup. The part where it reads the metadata cache.

> > Yes, it will warn noisily. This is unacceptable, since stable users
> > will have months and months of noise when new rules come along.
> 
> "unacceptable"...
> 
> as in "it's ugly to see"...

No, as in it'll result in zillions of users wondering what's going on
and why their screen is getting spammed, and zillions of bug reports and
forum posts.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh