| 1 |
On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:12:03 +0100 |
| 2 |
Steven J Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Robert R. Russell wrote: |
| 4 |
> <snip> |
| 5 |
> > If I understand the problem GLEP 55 is trying to solve correctly, |
| 6 |
> > it stems from portage's assumption that an unknown EAPI is equal to |
| 7 |
> > EAPI 0. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No, portage will reject an ebuild with an unknown EAPI, as per the |
| 10 |
> spec. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
You're confusing the term 'unknown' here. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Before an ebuild has had its metadata generated, its EAPI is unknown. At |
| 15 |
this point, the package manager assumes EAPI 0. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
After an ebuild has had its metadata generated, its EAPI is either |
| 18 |
known or unsupported, but if known may be unspecified. If it is known |
| 19 |
but unspecified, the package manager treats it as equivalent to EAPI 0. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Conceptually, these aren't the same thing. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives