Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-utils.eclass
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:58:59
Message-Id: 20100718005823.GB28010@hrair
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-utils.eclass by Alexis Ballier
1 On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:56:05AM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
2 > case ${EAPI:-0} in
3 > 2|3|4) ;;
5 > esac
6 >
7 > why not:
8 >
9 > case ${EAPI:-0} in
10 > 0|1) DEPEND="EAPI-TOO-OLD" ;;
11 > esac
13 Do not go adding invalid DEPEND like that. Make the eclass die
14 instead.
16 Seriously, and this is a general rant based on several years of
17 people adding stupid shit without considering the fallout:
19 Whatever great new little trick you can think of for stuff like
20 this... it's wrong. Use the mechanisms that exist. If policy
21 forbids it, fix the policy, don't come up w/ "clever" hacks around
22 it. Fix the core issue instead.
24 Wouldn't surprise me if portage would accept this and run with it,
25 blowing up at emerge time instead. Pkgcore and paludis however will
26 give you the finger *very* quickly since that's not a valid atom.
27 Don't piss on our parties w/ 'clever' tricks, do the right thing and
28 use a die.
30 People will move their ass a helluva lot quicker when their ebuild
31 breaks than when bones has to go yelling both at the eclass author,
32 and the devs in question about missing deps.
34 Do not add this to the tree.
35 ~harring


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-utils.eclass "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>