On wto, 2017-05-02 at 12:11 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On wto, 2017-05-02 at 11:49 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > > > Add forward compatibility up to python3.9. It's helpful to allow some > > > flexibility in ebuild PYTHON_COMPAT settings, for third-party > > > repositories that may be used with multiple snapshots of the gentoo > > > repository. > > > --- > > > eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass b/eclass/python-utils-r1. > > > > eclass > > > index 66a359e..997a994 100644 > > > --- a/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass > > > +++ b/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass > > > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ _python_impl_supported() { > > > python2_7|python3_[456]|jython2_7) > > > return 0 > > > ;; > > > - pypy1_[89]|pypy2_0|python2_[56]|python3_[123]) > > > + pypy1_[89]|pypy2_0|python2_[56]|python3_[123789]) > > > return 1 > > > ;; > > > pypy|pypy3) > > > > Sounds like a very bad idea. How can you even think of adding > > an implementation if you don't know what the eclass API for it would be? > > > > For my use case, we're adding python3_6 to PYTHON_COMPAT, and still using > those ebuilds with older snapshots of the gentoo repository from a few > months back (as well as newer snapshots). So, there's really no danger in > my case. > > With my suggested change, the eclass doesn't make any API guarantees. > Where's the harm?
Unless I'm missing something, this is going to cause the eclass to accept (and ignore) accidental use of python3_7. It's confusing, to say the least. If you really want to do weird stuff, you're on your own. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part