Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Haubenwallner <haubi@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:01:05
Message-Id: 1236675215.12714.48.camel@sapc154.salomon.at
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives by "Petteri R├Ąty"
1 Hi,
2
3 Reminder (for myself):
4 As long as we want/have to support PMs lacking EAPI detection in
5 '*.ebuild' to mask ebuilds with unknown EAPI, each approach to add EAPI
6 to an '*.ebuild' must be hackish. So we can try to find the least ugly
7 hack, or we need to change the extension.
8
9 So just another idea, based on the "eapi() function" one:
10 As inherit() is the only(?) global function provided by old PMs, the
11 first non-commentary/non-blank line in '*.ebuild' could read:
12
13 inherit eapi
14
15 Compliant PMs identify 'eapi' as a special eclass name (with or without
16 sourcing the ebuild), to know that "this ebuild specifies an EAPI".
17
18 For non-compliant PMs, we need to provide an 'eapi.eclass', which just
19 spits some 'your PM lacks EAPI support' message and causes the PM to
20 mask this ebuild 'by corruption' or the like.
21
22 Or - what are old PM's messages when an eclass is missing?
23
24 Eventually, this line also could finally specify the EAPI and read:
25
26 inherit eapi 4
27
28 Because non-compliant PM's already quit because of (missing or dying)
29 eapi.eclass, there is no need to have a '4.eclass'.
30
31 /haubi/
32 --
33 Michael Haubenwallner
34 Gentoo on a different level

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives Alistair Bush <ali_bush@g.o>