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 |