| 1 |
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:13:16 +0100 |
| 2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Which begs the question: is it really worth allowing it? |
| 4 |
> If we only allow constant assignments (which is an implicit |
| 5 |
> restriction in the file extension version) then this can be parsed |
| 6 |
> easily with grep/tr/awk/etc and can be the magic eapi guessing. Of |
| 7 |
> course the tree has to be checked before implementing this and we'll |
| 8 |
> have to wait a good amount of time before breaking the current eapi |
| 9 |
> bash-parsing but I'm not aware of any eapi proposal that would break |
| 10 |
> the current behavior and would be usable in the main tree within a |
| 11 |
> reasonable amount of time such that we can't ignore backward |
| 12 |
> compatibility. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
...and then we have to do the whole thing again every time something |
| 15 |
new crops up. EAPI was supposed to solve this, and profile eapi and GLEP |
| 16 |
55 finish the job. Repeatedly going back and saying "oh, we have to |
| 17 |
wait another year or more again" is unacceptable. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > In foo.eclass: |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > EAPI="3" |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I thought this was prohibited. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It's legal, and people have done it, but it's considered by most people |
| 26 |
to be a horrible QA violation. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives