On Wednesday 17 May 2006 21:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006 21:22:28 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | On Wednesday 17 May 2006 20:44, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | > Portage still relies upon being able to source ebuilds, even if > | > their EAPI isn't supported. > | > | Currently, nothing except the ability to parse bash directly would > | make it otherwise. Against my advise, there are no restrictions upon > | the EAPI variable. As such EAPI can not reliably be determined > | without understanding (or being) bash. > > Not exactly true. There's nothing to stop a package manager from > gracefully handling not even being able to source the ebuild. The way > Paludis handles this is to create fake version metadata for weird > ebuilds with EAPI set to "UNKNOWN". It's not perfect, but it avoids any > overly crazy behaviour.
This is not the standard, nor what portage does. It is what portage should
do, but not what it does. It would have been far preferable if doing an
egrep on "^EAPI" would just be enough, but this is not true. EAPI can be
defined even by EAPI="${PV}" (I know it is silly, but allowed).
My concern is not what paludis does, but what portage does. This means
that technically paludis can not support all EAPI cases properly (except
bailing out when parsing fails).
Paul
--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpSPa4851fBh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
