On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:08:36 +0100 "Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would it be possible to have eclass/eapiBLAH/foo.eclass?
No. Not even with an EAPI change. This is one of the deficiencies in the way EAPI was designed -- an EAPI cannot change the behaviour of inherit, nor can it introduce new global-scope functions. The .ebuild-eapi proposal didn't have this problem, but unfortunately it was rejected for political reasons... > > * Eclasses cannot be made not to work with any given EAPI. If such > > functionality is desirable, someone needs to file an EAPI request > > for permitting an alternative to 'die' that is legal in global > > scope. > > So is it desirable? > > If portage masks ebuilds with an unsupported EAPI, what's the point? > It'd be enough to be able to check EAPI compatibility in eclasses > quickly so repoman and others can print a nice error. The problem is that people change eclasses and don't check every single package that uses them. Find a solution for that problem and then eclasses supporting only a subset of EAPIs becomes feasible. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
