| 1 |
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:22:41 -0500 |
| 2 |
Doug Klima <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> My point is it's fine to state this, however there needs to be |
| 4 |
> enforcement of this in the associated utilities. repoman, etc. |
| 5 |
> Unfortunately, eclasses are not checked at all at commit time, which |
| 6 |
> would allow developers to make this potentially catastrophic change. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Well, the other option is to enforce it via the package manager. But |
| 9 |
that's enforcing tree policy via EAPI, which we were trying to avoid. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> So we're going to have "eapi 1 && inherit foo-eapi1.eclass" allowable |
| 12 |
> in "foo.eclass"? When will this "eapi" keyword be available for |
| 13 |
> eclasses to use? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
[[ $EAPI == 1 ]] |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Adding an eapi keyword would require a new EAPI, so you'd have to do |
| 18 |
the variable test for 0 and 1 anyway (and note that the empty EAPI is |
| 19 |
exactly like EAPI 0, and you can't assume that you'll get one or the |
| 20 |
other). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives