| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 12:38:16PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/30/05 Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On Monday 29 August 2005 22:52, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > Brian Harring wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > Please test this out; if you want to test the EAPI checking, tag |
| 7 |
> > > > EAPI=1 into an ebuild, and try making emerge bail. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > Well, it bails too often. :) |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > It seems that an explicit integer conversion is needed for > and < |
| 12 |
> > > comparisons with mixed types |
| 13 |
> > > (2.0.51-eapi-awareness-emerge-int-conversion.patch). |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > I don't think it is a wise path to interpret EAPI's as integers at |
| 16 |
> > all. There should not be guarantees of forward or backward |
| 17 |
> > compatibility between versions. Interpreting them as integers seems |
| 18 |
> > to imply that. Basically I think that EAPI could be anything wanted, |
| 19 |
> > similar to SLOTS. Of course using digits is easy for humans. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I've to agree with Paul here, portage should hold a list of all EAPI |
| 22 |
> values it understands, not a maximum value. |
| 23 |
Stable knows of one version- so containment check versus > is moot; |
| 24 |
negated values are disallowed for eapi anyways. |
| 25 |
Note that the rewrite will do containment tests instead, but rewrite |
| 26 |
will also support eapi1 and eapi0 rather then just one. |
| 27 |
~harring |
Archives