| 1 |
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:21:30 +0200 |
| 2 |
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Neither EAPI 0 nor EAPI 1 provide any mechanism for an ebuild to |
| 4 |
> > 'die' at global scope. There's simply no way for eclasses to |
| 5 |
> > complain that they're being misused. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Well nothing formal but the ebuild developer should pick up ewarn/echo |
| 8 |
> /whatever messages coming from global scope. That's what we have in |
| 9 |
> debug.eclass atm. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Past experience has shown that those messages will end up being seen by |
| 12 |
end users and not being picked up by developers. People changing |
| 13 |
eclasses generally don't force a metadata generation for every package |
| 14 |
that uses the eclass. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I suspect that for existing eclasses, the safest way to proceed is to |
| 17 |
make a new eclass and move common code into a third eclass. So you'd |
| 18 |
have foo.eclass doing EAPI 0 specific stuff and inheriting foo-common, |
| 19 |
and foo-eapi1.eclass doing EAPI 1 specific stuff and inheriting |
| 20 |
foo-common. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives