Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:18:52
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds by Ciaran McCreesh
>>>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:59:33 -0500 > Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@g.o> wrote: >> In light of the fact that all 29758 ebuilds in portage already >> satisfy the proposed whitespace, quoting, and indenting constrains >> on EAPI assignment, the probability of problems appears to be >> vanishingly small. And "vanishingly small" and can be reduced to >> zero by simply adding a check to repoman.
> Because they were recently changed, presumably...
> We had this discussion the last time around too, and people were > told to assign in a particular way. As you can see, it didn't work.
Sorry, but this is nonsense (or rather FUD). Indeed we had 3 ebuilds (0.01%) in the Portage tree where parsing resulted in an EAPI different from the one in metadata. In one of them, removal of the old assignment statement had simply been forgotten [1]. For the other two, the EAPI had been assigned by an eclass [2], which we consider illegal anyway. Ulrich [1] <> [2] <>


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>