Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] EAPI cleanups and fixes
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:26:01
Message-Id: 20051003183040.GB18244@nightcrawler.wit.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] EAPI cleanups and fixes by Jason Stubbs
1 On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 01:06:35AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
2 > Don't like the size of this patch, but it's quite repetitive so...
3 Wouldn't worry on the repetitive, it's repetitive due to the fact the
4 *dbapi classes don't (ab|)use inheritance...
5
6 > * Make all aux_get() functions return a list of strings again
7 Why is this a good thing for EAPI?
8
9 > * Move the EAPI validity check into a separate function
10 > * Raise a specific UnsupportedAPIException instead of plain Exception
11 > * Mark metadata of unsupported EAPIs as "INVALID" rather than -1
12
13 This doesn't really fly imo. You mark it as invalid, and _no_ portage
14 version (regardless of it's ability to handle that EAPI) will _ever_
15 regenerate that entry.
16
17 An old portage version updating the cache would make certain nodes
18 never usable.
19
20 The -1 is wrong, should be -EAPI. This however is getting back into
21 the "eapi should be freeform, not just ints", which I thought I
22 clarified why it should be ints (or people shut up instead of
23 listening to me argue it). :)
24 ~harring

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] EAPI cleanups and fixes Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>