1 |
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 10:10:47PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Sunday 16 September 2012 03:51:04 Brian Harring wrote: |
3 |
> > + if ! has $EAPI 0 1 2 3; then |
4 |
> > + eqawarn "built_with_use should not be used in $EAPI; use USE deps." |
5 |
> > + elif has $EAPI 2 3; then |
6 |
> > + if [[ $hidden == yes ]] || $missing_was_set; then |
7 |
> > + eqawarn "built_with_use in EAPI=$EAPI without --missing or -- |
8 |
> hidden |
9 |
> > usage, should use USE deps instead." + else |
10 |
> > + eqawarn "built_with_use should not be used; upgrade to EAPI=4 |
11 |
> instead" |
12 |
> > + fi |
13 |
> > + fi |
14 |
> |
15 |
> i'd do: |
16 |
> case ${EAPI:-0} in |
17 |
> # No support in these EAPIs, so don't warn. |
18 |
> 0|1) ;; |
19 |
> # Maybe warn as some functionality exist. |
20 |
> 2|3) [[...]] && eqawarn "..." ;; |
21 |
> # Assume EAPI=4 or newer where all functionality exists. |
22 |
> *) eqawarn "..." ;; |
23 |
> esac |
24 |
|
25 |
I'd be fine w/ it; worth noting, that was a 4am patch, so I'm not |
26 |
claiming perfect implementatoin there. :) |
27 |
|
28 |
My main focus here is switching built_with_use to actively nagging |
29 |
people to stop using it; this includes nagging EAPI0/1 users of it. |
30 |
|
31 |
Sans the implementation details, anyone got complaints with the |
32 |
intent? |
33 |
~brian |