| 1 |
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:04:46 +0100 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> given that the simplest thing is hacking ebuild.sh and extract eapi |
| 4 |
> with a simple C program (you can use pcre or ragel if you want) |
| 5 |
> exactly before the ebuild source: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That you're bringing ebuild.sh into this shows you still haven't worked |
| 8 |
out how the process works. There is no need to use ebuild.sh (which is |
| 9 |
a very good thing, because launching bash is slooooooooooooow) when |
| 10 |
there's valid metadata. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > So you have patches for Portage? Please show them. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Up there what's enough to check the viability for the solution. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
No, it's completely wrong. ebuild.sh has nothing to do with this. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> >> unknown isn't unsupported? |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > Huh? Please explain what you mean. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> mv cat/pkg-version.ebuild cat/pkg-version_foo.ebuild |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> emerge -vp pkg |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> portage will warn about not knowing pkg-version_foo and will ignore |
| 27 |
> it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Yes, it will warn noisily. This is unacceptable, since stable users |
| 30 |
will have months and months of noise when new rules come along. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives