| 1 |
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:56:04 +0100 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > That you're bringing ebuild.sh into this shows you still haven't |
| 4 |
> > worked out how the process works. There is no need to use ebuild.sh |
| 5 |
> > (which is a very good thing, because launching bash is |
| 6 |
> > slooooooooooooow) when there's valid metadata. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> it there is a valid metadata you have everything there already and |
| 9 |
> you don't have to parse the ebuild so... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Except you can't tell whether the metadata is valid unless you already |
| 12 |
know the EAPI. As you have already been told. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> >>> So you have patches for Portage? Please show them. |
| 15 |
> >> Up there what's enough to check the viability for the solution. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > No, it's completely wrong. ebuild.sh has nothing to do with this. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Is there another place in portage that extracts the EAPI value? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Yup. The part where it reads the metadata cache. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> > Yes, it will warn noisily. This is unacceptable, since stable users |
| 24 |
> > will have months and months of noise when new rules come along. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> "unacceptable"... |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> as in "it's ugly to see"... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
No, as in it'll result in zillions of users wondering what's going on |
| 31 |
and why their screen is getting spammed, and zillions of bug reports and |
| 32 |
forum posts. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives