-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 28/08/12 10:35 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 06:26:02 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
>> Arahesis <arfrever....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2012-08-28 00:19:28 Michał Górny napisał(a):
>>>> +case ${EAPI:-0} in + 0|1|2|3|4) ;; + *) die
>>>> "${ECLASS}.eclass API in EAPI ${EAPI} not yet established."
>>>> +esac
>>>
>>> Please accept all EAPIs.
>>
>> These are EAPIs which are allowed throughout the tree, sorry.
>> Feel free to ping Council about adding non-standard EAPIs to
>> eclasses.
>>
>
> Is the eclass likely to be incompatible with future EAPIs? If not,
> I think it is reasonable to remove this check.
>
It's quite standard to have the above check in place; and since there
is no guarantee that new EAPIs *won't* break something, I think it
would be a good idea to leave this as-is.
Yes this will add a touch more work when it comes to bumping eclasses
to accept EAPI=5 or newer, but forcing a dev to check the eclass's
compatibility when a new EAPI rolls out is a good thing imo.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlA82ToACgkQ2ugaI38ACPA4LQEAhoW6FtSwDqTdsV84XOjsibOp
TdM1B3sE8Gpp8WnfFhgA/3MvQy9oq+y/0U1cqMByiSAH4wN/12f0yuvGiWYD5pXf
=GQ4U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
