| 1 |
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:02:46 -0800 |
| 2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Bullshit. First invocation of the ebuild, that means it can do |
| 4 |
> whatever it wants to the environment- literally swapping in the EAPI |
| 5 |
> environment right then/there. Auto inherits, changing the inherit |
| 6 |
> mechanism, everything (this includes shopt adjustments). |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Not even sure why you're arguing that one, but back it up w/ examples |
| 9 |
> if you want to continue that line of FUD. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
You can do that on a variable assignment too, with all the same |
| 12 |
implications as having it as a function, and a slightly less horrible |
| 13 |
upgrade path. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > Global scope die is very very messy. This leaks out to users in the |
| 16 |
> > form of horrible messages that make the user think something's badly |
| 17 |
> > broken. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> One would think "upgrade your manager" would be... self explanatory. |
| 20 |
> Regardless, spelling it out- the user visible barf is only visible on |
| 21 |
> existant managers. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> For any manager supporting eapi>2 (thus having the function), the |
| 24 |
> function can exist out cleanly (no stderr complaints) from sourcing |
| 25 |
> at that point without issue. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Which is a "wait a year or more" thing... If you do it with a variable |
| 28 |
instead of a function, you can at least roll out EAPI 3 (without any |
| 29 |
global scope changes, but with the stricter "stop on setting an |
| 30 |
unsupported EAPI" requirement) without the wait. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> Every proposal has uglyness- g55 for example doesn't give the user |
| 33 |
> any indication that they're not seeing ebuilds due to EAPI (in other |
| 34 |
> words loss of functionality that exists now). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Given you're a proponent of not showing users things that're merely |
| 37 |
masked... |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives