Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Sebastian Pipping <sping@g.o>
Subject: Re: FEATURES use or misuse?
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:33:23 +0100
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Calling EAPI is ... well ... I can't even think of a place to start to explain 
> how wrong it is. How on earth are you going to parse an eclass that supports 
> multiple EAPIs where one EAPI were to support features of bash 4? 
> The only way to do it would be to force bash 4 on all lower EAPIs, or make 
> per-EAPI eclasses, or forbid use of new bash features in eclasses.
> All horrible ways to avoid fixing the problem.

I find restricting the eclass to Bash 3 is a natural, maintainable
approach to this.  How would "fixing he problem" work from your perspective?


> All workaroundable by just 
> accepting things as they are.

What do you mean by "accepting things as they are"?
You have been talking of "accepting reality" repeatedly and I'm left
wondering what you actually mean by that.  I especially fail to see who
is trying to conceal(?) reality and reality about what.



Sebastian



Replies:
Re: FEATURES use or misuse?
-- Patrick Lauer
References:
FEATURES use or misuse?
-- Patrick Lauer
Re: FEATURES use or misuse?
-- Alexis Ballier
Re: FEATURES use or misuse?
-- Patrick Lauer
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: FEATURES use or misuse?
Next by thread:
Re: FEATURES use or misuse?
Previous by date:
Re: FEATURES use or misuse?
Next by date:
Re: FEATURES use or misuse?


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.