(trying to have people understand the idea, not to discuss in this thread) On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 06:18 +1300, Alistair Bush wrote:
> > As long as we want/have to support PMs lacking EAPI detection in > > '*.ebuild' to mask ebuilds with unknown EAPI, each approach to add EAPI > > to an '*.ebuild' must be hackish. So we can try to find the least ugly > > hack, or we need to change the extension. > > inherit eapi 4 > > > > Because non-compliant PM's already quit because of (missing or dying) > > eapi.eclass, there is no need to have a '4.eclass'. > > How would the 4.eclass determine whether the package manager actually > supports the eapi? > > inherit is a function remember so any "special" parsing will not change > the fact the the inherit function will be called. > Will then need to determine whether there is actually a PM that doesn't > support the eclasses EAPI and then die. The most important point here I thought everyone is aware of: inherit() is a function provided *by* PM - or am I wrong here? So it already *knows* to handle the 'eapi' argument as special when the PM is compliant, to not read *any* eclass for this one inherit-call when the ebuild gets sourced (assuming selected eapi specifies to shell-source the ebuild). And non-compliant PMs would mask the ebuild 'by corruption', because of either missing or globalscope-dying eapi.eclass, whatever can be made look more obvious to the user. > What are the implications of calling inherit multiple times within an > ebuild? A compliant PM does allow this if the selected eapi specifies to inherit eclasses, a non-compliant PM will not come to a subsequent inherit call after 'inherit eapi'. > Im sorry, but this just sounds like a HACK, and a hacky hack at that. Agreed (see above). Again - the only reason for this idea is to eventually allow for keeping the '.ebuild' extension, because EAPI 0 does not allow for specifying *any* eapi at all. It just forces PM to provide inherit() as the only PM-defined global-scope function. So whatever we try, specifying an eapi inside an .ebuild *without* changing the extension *will* be a hack, just more ore less ugly. /haubi/ -- Michael Haubenwallner Gentoo on a different level
