| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:59:33 -0500 |
| 4 |
> Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> In light of the fact that all 29758 ebuilds in portage already |
| 6 |
>> satisfy the proposed whitespace, quoting, and indenting constrains |
| 7 |
>> on EAPI assignment, the probability of problems appears to be |
| 8 |
>> vanishingly small. And "vanishingly small" and can be reduced to |
| 9 |
>> zero by simply adding a check to repoman. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Because they were recently changed, presumably... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402167#c36 |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> We had this discussion the last time around too, and people were |
| 16 |
> told to assign in a particular way. As you can see, it didn't work. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Sorry, but this is nonsense (or rather FUD). Indeed we had 3 ebuilds |
| 19 |
(0.01%) in the Portage tree where parsing resulted in an EAPI |
| 20 |
different from the one in metadata. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
In one of them, removal of the old assignment statement had simply |
| 23 |
been forgotten [1]. For the other two, the EAPI had been assigned by |
| 24 |
an eclass [2], which we consider illegal anyway. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Ulrich |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
[1] <http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/dev-ml/bin-prot/bin-prot-2.0.3.ebuild?r1=1.1&r2=1.2> |
| 30 |
[2] <http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/eclass/apache-2.eclass?r1=1.26&r2=1.27> |
Archives