| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I believe you're overthinking it, if we make it a guideline to include a |
| 4 |
> section of the eclass (as many already have) that does e.g (take this |
| 5 |
> for example purposes) there is no EAPI/PMS change needed |
| 6 |
> case "${EAPI:-0}" in |
| 7 |
> 4|5|6) |
| 8 |
> ;; |
| 9 |
> *) die "EAPI=${EAPI} is not supported" ;; |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I think the question becomes then what do we do about eclasses that |
| 13 |
don't follow the guideline? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
With a PMS change we can in the future enforce that the eclass |
| 16 |
explicitly declare support by making it break by default if nothing is |
| 17 |
done. With the approach above an eclass works with any EAPI by |
| 18 |
default as far as PMS is concerned, and we rely on eclasses to |
| 19 |
self-destruct when they're supposed to. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I think this can be controlled if we're disciplined about catching |
| 22 |
this in new eclasses. We can do a one-time commit to all existing |
| 23 |
eclasses to add this code somewhere if the maintainers do not add it. |
| 24 |
That might involve either just having the eclasses abort on any EAPI |
| 25 |
by default, on anything but the oldest supported EAPI, or just putting |
| 26 |
in an acceptance of all existing EAPIs in which case we accept the |
| 27 |
problem as far as the next PMS update but no further. Obviously the |
| 28 |
ideal solution is for eclasses to be properly maintained. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
In general though I'm all for the proposal, and I tend to think that |
| 31 |
it is best for an eclass to either support an EAPI or not, and not do |
| 32 |
this per-function. If that leads to refactoring so much the better. |
| 33 |
I'm flexible on exactly how it gets implemented, but both eclass |
| 34 |
maintainers and users should have a clear understanding of what |
| 35 |
is/isn't supported. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Rich |
Archives