Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI specification in ebuilds
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:19:36
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI specification in ebuilds by Ciaran McCreesh
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:13:09 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: >> Anyway, what's the usage case for having the EAPI assignment after >> the inherit command? Currently this is forbidden.
> It is? By the spec, or by QA policy? If it's just the latter, we can't > rely upon people following it.
Policy. The devmanual says "if you want to override the EAPI variable, you have to specify it at the top of the ebuild" and "eclasses may have EAPI-conditional code".
> I think this whole thing goes away if you also require in the spec > (i.e. PMS, not QA) that the EAPI assignment be done before anything > else.
Agreed, that would be best. Now we only need a wording for "before anything else" or "at the top of the ebuild" that is suitable for the spec. ;-) And if possible, it should be specified in a way that doesn't invalidate ebuilds with harmless permutations like this: WANT_AUTOCONF="2.1" EAPI="3" Ulrich


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI specification in ebuilds Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>