| 1 |
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 21:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 21:22:28 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | On Wednesday 17 May 2006 20:44, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
> | > Portage still relies upon being able to source ebuilds, even if |
| 7 |
> | > their EAPI isn't supported. |
| 8 |
> | |
| 9 |
> | Currently, nothing except the ability to parse bash directly would |
| 10 |
> | make it otherwise. Against my advise, there are no restrictions upon |
| 11 |
> | the EAPI variable. As such EAPI can not reliably be determined |
| 12 |
> | without understanding (or being) bash. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Not exactly true. There's nothing to stop a package manager from |
| 15 |
> gracefully handling not even being able to source the ebuild. The way |
| 16 |
> Paludis handles this is to create fake version metadata for weird |
| 17 |
> ebuilds with EAPI set to "UNKNOWN". It's not perfect, but it avoids any |
| 18 |
> overly crazy behaviour. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This is not the standard, nor what portage does. It is what portage should |
| 21 |
do, but not what it does. It would have been far preferable if doing an |
| 22 |
egrep on "^EAPI" would just be enough, but this is not true. EAPI can be |
| 23 |
defined even by EAPI="${PV}" (I know it is silly, but allowed). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
My concern is not what paludis does, but what portage does. This means |
| 26 |
that technically paludis can not support all EAPI cases properly (except |
| 27 |
bailing out when parsing fails). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Paul |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 33 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 34 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 35 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives