| 1 |
Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> Calling EAPI is ... well ... I can't even think of a place to start to explain |
| 3 |
> how wrong it is. How on earth are you going to parse an eclass that supports |
| 4 |
> multiple EAPIs where one EAPI were to support features of bash 4? |
| 5 |
> The only way to do it would be to force bash 4 on all lower EAPIs, or make |
| 6 |
> per-EAPI eclasses, or forbid use of new bash features in eclasses. |
| 7 |
> All horrible ways to avoid fixing the problem. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I find restricting the eclass to Bash 3 is a natural, maintainable |
| 10 |
approach to this. How would "fixing he problem" work from your perspective? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> All workaroundable by just |
| 14 |
> accepting things as they are. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
What do you mean by "accepting things as they are"? |
| 17 |
You have been talking of "accepting reality" repeatedly and I'm left |
| 18 |
wondering what you actually mean by that. I especially fail to see who |
| 19 |
is trying to conceal(?) reality and reality about what. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Sebastian |
Archives