On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:02:46 -0800
Brian Harring <ferringb@...> wrote:
> Bullshit.  First invocation of the ebuild, that means it can do 
> whatever it wants to the environment- literally swapping in the EAPI 
> environment right then/there.  Auto inherits, changing the inherit 
> mechanism, everything (this includes shopt adjustments).
> 
> Not even sure why you're arguing that one, but back it up w/ examples 
> if you want to continue that line of FUD.

You can do that on a variable assignment too, with all the same
implications as having it as a function, and a slightly less horrible
upgrade path.

> > Global scope die is very very messy. This leaks out to users in the
> > form of horrible messages that make the user think something's badly
> > broken.
> 
> One would think "upgrade your manager" would be... self explanatory.  
> Regardless, spelling it out- the user visible barf is only visible on 
> existant managers.
> 
> For any manager supporting eapi>2 (thus having the function), the 
> function can exist out cleanly (no stderr complaints) from sourcing
> at that point without issue.

Which is a "wait a year or more" thing... If you do it with a variable
instead of a function, you can at least roll out EAPI 3 (without any
global scope changes, but with the stricter "stop on setting an
unsupported EAPI" requirement) without the wait.

> Every proposal has uglyness- g55 for example doesn't give the user
> any indication that they're not seeing ebuilds due to EAPI (in other
> words loss of functionality that exists now).

Given you're a proponent of not showing users things that're merely
masked...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh