List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
Joe Peterson wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> And a file extension is far less obscurely complex than enforcing
>> arbitrary syntax restrictions upon ebuilds.
> I disagree. One is exposed to devs only as ebuild syntax; the other is
> exposed in an inappropriate location to everyone looking at the portage
>> No it can't. EAPI has to be known before the source can start. Bash
>> doesn't provide traps for executing code upon changed variables.
> Doing it out-of-band solve this.
>> No, it's only needed once per non-trivial change. So we might as well
>> just change it for every EAPI.
> Huh? If the "new" portage knows how to determine the EAPI definitively
> (and that would be defined), it can deal with the differences.
>> And then how do we deal with EAPI 3, where the syntax changes again?
> Portage (or whatever PM) reads the EAPI, determines it is 3, and goes
> from there. If you change the way you declare EAPI each time, yeah,
> that's a problem, but I'm not sure why that would ne necessary.
No, that is not the problem.
In EAPI 42 we define that the package manager must provide a global function
extract_depend_from_setup_py() such that it is callable at a global level
in an ebuild like this
# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: $
DESCRIPTION="A library aiming to support agile and test-driven python
development on various levels."
Now, a package manager (or a tool) not knowing EAPI 42 will fail when it
tries to source the above ebuild to determine the EAPI version (as it is
being currently done as far as I understood it) because
extract_depend_from_setup_py is undefined.
So it won't even be able to read out the EAPI.
With the EAPI in the filename tools now knowing EAPI-42 will either ignore
the above foo-1.0.ebuild-42 or mask it because they may identify the
EAPI-version without sourcing the ebuild.
And: No, just sourcing the ebuild and simply masking it because we can't
source it is a no-go (since you're abusing error-handling as a case
email@example.com mailing list