| 1 |
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:47:35 -0500 |
| 2 |
Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:02:15 +0100 |
| 7 |
> > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:53:17 +1100 |
| 10 |
> >> Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> > What do you think? |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> +1 |
| 16 |
> >> |
| 17 |
> >> even if I sometimes use those cmake-utils_use*, they tend to |
| 18 |
> >> confuse me and find -DABCD=$(usex ...) much easier to understand |
| 19 |
> >> for the occasional user of cmake-utils.eclass. |
| 20 |
> >> |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought EAPI 6 specifications were |
| 24 |
> > finalized. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > Doesn't that mean this will have to wait for EAPI 7? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> eclass API is not directly tied to EAPI/PMS. However, |
| 29 |
> cmake-utils.eclass has this: |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> case ${EAPI} in |
| 32 |
> 2|3|4|5) : ;; |
| 33 |
> *) die "EAPI=${EAPI:-0} is not supported" ;; |
| 34 |
> esac |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> That means that its API is currently undefined when EAPI is set to 6; |
| 37 |
> the eclass will immediately die. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> This is just a convenient opportunity to change the API of this eclass |
| 40 |
> without risking breakage of existing ebuilds. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Thanks to both Michael and Mike. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
I didn't read enough of the emails and missed this was about eclass |
| 46 |
API's |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |
Archives