On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:08:36 +0100
"Santiago M. Mola" <coldwind@g.o> wrote:
> Would it be possible to have eclass/eapiBLAH/foo.eclass?

No. Not even with an EAPI change. This is one of the deficiencies in
the way EAPI was designed -- an EAPI cannot change the behaviour of
inherit, nor can it introduce new global-scope functions.

The .ebuild-eapi proposal didn't have this problem, but unfortunately it
was rejected for political reasons...

> > * Eclasses cannot be made not to work with any given EAPI. If such
> > functionality is desirable, someone needs to file an EAPI request
> > for permitting an alternative to 'die' that is legal in global
> > scope.
> 
> So is it desirable?
> 
> If portage masks ebuilds with an unsupported EAPI, what's the point?
> It'd be enough to be able to check EAPI compatibility in eclasses
> quickly so repoman and others can print a nice error.

The problem is that people change eclasses and don't check every single
package that uses them. Find a solution for that problem and then
eclasses supporting only a subset of EAPIs becomes feasible.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh