| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:31:26AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/27/05 Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Hola. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Attached is a patch that |
| 7 |
> > A) adds EAPI awareness to portage; mainly, if >0, complain and be |
| 8 |
> > unwilling to merge the package |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Actually I just wrote also a patch for it (for 2.1), however instead of |
| 11 |
> complaining I just masked them (without unmask ability), just add a |
| 12 |
> check to gvisible() and getmaskingstatus() (actually just calling |
| 13 |
> dbapi.eapicheck()). That way it should be more transparent to users IMO. |
| 14 |
> Won't stop people from using ebuild(1) though. |
| 15 |
Masking makes a bit more sense, 'cept that information needs to be |
| 16 |
dumped out when resolution cannot occur. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Further, it's a mild gotcha for users who wonder wth portage is |
| 19 |
masking a node. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Better approach imo though, and would like to see that implemented |
| 22 |
rather then what I did with the stable patch. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Incremental'ing EAPI during inherit is a no go; EAPI1 and |
| 25 |
EAPI0 are incompatible for execution, due to the src_compile |
| 26 |
configure/make breakup. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Somebody care to split a masking patch for stable rather then the |
| 29 |
emerge modifications I did btw? I'm poking at ensuring an eapi=0 |
| 30 |
portage's generated eapi=1 cache entries are not used by an eapi=1 |
| 31 |
portage without a forced regeneration atm. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
That and the fact the 2.1 state should be decided, if we're going to |
| 34 |
have (effectively) two branches of development going at once, vs |
| 35 |
developmental line and maintenance branch. |
| 36 |
~harring |
Archives