| 1 |
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:13:06 +0200, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 17.2.2010 16.33, Torsten Veller wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> --- eutils.eclass 15 Feb 2010 02:10:39 -0000 1.330 |
| 7 |
>>> +++ eutils.eclass 17 Feb 2010 14:13:16 -0000 |
| 8 |
>>> @@ -50,6 +50,15 @@ |
| 9 |
>>> done |
| 10 |
>>> fi |
| 11 |
>>> } |
| 12 |
>>> +else |
| 13 |
>>> + ebeep() { |
| 14 |
>>> + eqawarn "ebeep is not defined in EAPI=3, please file |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> The problem here is that eqawarn isn't defined in EAPI 3. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Just shows that committing things to central eclasses without review is |
| 20 |
> a bad thing. I improved the code so that it doesn't at least call |
| 21 |
> eqawarn without first checking if it exists. Instead of code like this |
| 22 |
> in the eclasses, I think this should be done by Portage grepping logs. I |
| 23 |
> think it's already running searches over it for gcc things any way. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
What is going on with all these undocumented changes? When I look at the |
| 26 |
council logs to see what is in EAPI3, I don't see anything about removing |
| 27 |
functions. This is just silly and wastes alot of people's time for no |
| 28 |
practical gain. In my EAPI3 portage, bin/isolated-functions.sh still has |
| 29 |
eqawarn() defined. So, what am I missing now? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Also, other people think it is OK to change the behavior of functions and |
| 32 |
not document it in devmanual? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> Regards, |
| 35 |
> Petteri |
Archives