On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:11:04AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 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.

You're contradicting your own statements.  Pkg level eclasses (if 
reusing inherit) would explode 'in a user visible manner' if using var 
only.

While the above wasn't FUD, definitely was misinfo.  Be consistant 
please.


> > > 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.

There is no reason to wait a year let alone wait for EAPI3 to be 
defined.  The eapi function could be added now in preparation (thus 
killing the user visible pukage), regardless of eapi 3's timeline.

The die exists strictly to be thorough about stragglers.


> > 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...

Say what you want; g55 still has the flaw.

~harring