1 |
On Thu, 2021-06-17 at 12:10 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> > > > > > On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, David Michael wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > @@ -33,15 +34,12 @@ _FCAPS_ECLASS=1 |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > IUSE="+filecaps" |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > -# Since it is needed in pkg_postinst() it must be in RDEPEND |
9 |
> > +# Since it is needed in pkg_postinst() it must be in IDEPEND |
10 |
> > case "${EAPI:-0}" in |
11 |
> > - [0-6]) |
12 |
> > - RDEPEND="filecaps? ( sys-libs/libcap )" |
13 |
> > - ;; |
14 |
> > - *) |
15 |
> > - BDEPEND="filecaps? ( sys-libs/libcap )" |
16 |
> > - RDEPEND="${BDEPEND}" |
17 |
> > - ;; |
18 |
> > + 7) BDEPEND="filecaps? ( sys-libs/libcap )" ;& |
19 |
> |
20 |
> This is ill-defined in old EAPIs (5 and before), so the case statement |
21 |
> may fail. You cannot use ;& in global scope of an eclass. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Why not just change * to 7, and add a new case for 8? It's one |
24 |
> additional line, and IMHO would be better readable than having a |
25 |
> fallthrough. |
26 |
|
27 |
I've already left a comment on the PR suggesting to split it into two |
28 |
cases: one to check for valid EAPI, the other for deps. It would be |
29 |
cleaner IMO, as the second case would cover all future EAPIs via *, |
30 |
and the first one would prevent the syntax error from applying to old |
31 |
EAPIs (I've tested that). |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Best regards, |
35 |
Michał Górny |