| 1 |
On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 5:54 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Quoting ciaranm [1]: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> | > "EAPIs whose value starts with the string paludis- are reserved for |
| 6 |
> | > experimental use by the Paludis package manager." |
| 7 |
> | |
| 8 |
> | Don't tell anyone, but that's mostly just in there because some people |
| 9 |
> | insisted that EAPIs were numbers (and thus comparable), so I wanted an |
| 10 |
> | explicit mention of one that wasn't. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The other aspect of it is that they cannot be assumed to be ordered. |
| 14 |
You could at some point in the future have a branching hierarchy of |
| 15 |
sorts where some EAPIs contain some features and others contain |
| 16 |
others, with neither being a superset of the other even accounting for |
| 17 |
deprecation. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I get that we haven't generally done that historically, but you |
| 20 |
shouldn't be doing ordered/range/etc comparisons with EAPIs (ie "if |
| 21 |
EAPI < 5 do this, else do that"). Such things should always be based |
| 22 |
on explicit values ("if EAPI in (1,2,3,4) do this, else do that"). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives