On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:12:51 -0500
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And then you are stuck FOREVER into defining EAPI as a variable.
>
> And with the proposed GLEP you are stuck FOREVER into defining EAPI as
> part of the filename. What's the difference?
No you aren't. That is the
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 06:01:04PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
>>> Your algorithm:
>>>
>>> Does not work for existing ebuilds that have implicit EAPI 0.
>> That's obvious. If no suffix, just treat it as EAPI 0.
>> I thought I don't need to say this explicitly.
>
> '# Copyrig
Richard Freeman wrote:
> Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 06:01:04PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
>>> All could be get before sourcing.
>>> I know you'd say people will use all syntaxes to define. But how many are
>>> there? EAPI=1, EAPI="1" these are the two ways currently used in tr
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 06:01:04PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
>> All could be get before sourcing.
>> I know you'd say people will use all syntaxes to define. But how many are
>> there? EAPI=1, EAPI="1" these are the two ways currently used in tree.
>> A simple qgrep can sho
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 06:01:04PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> >
> > Your algorithm:
> >
> > Does not work for existing ebuilds that have implicit EAPI 0.
>
> That's obvious. If no suffix, just treat it as EAPI 0.
> I thought I don't need to say this explicitly.
'# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Found
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:55:50 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> Note *the way things are currently*. If you think this is untrue,
>>> provide an algorithm that will correctly give the EAPI of any
>>> current or future ebuild given that
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:55:50 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Note *the way things are currently*. If you think this is untrue,
> > provide an algorithm that will correctly give the EAPI of any
> > current or future ebuild given that ebuild's filename (hint: yo
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:59:53 +
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> It's so that the ebuild's EAPI can be extracted. The way things are
>>> currently, there is no way to get an ebuild's EAPI without already
>>> knowing its EAPI.
>>>
>> Like I said, it's trivial t
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:59:53 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Wow that doesn't half sound like nonsense.
> >
> > Unfortunately, it's not nonsense. It's entirely true. If you don't
> > understand that then you can't contribute anything useful to the
> > discussion, so kindly stay ou
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:48:31 +
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> No: without knowing the EAPI when generating said data. If that
>> >> needs to be known relatively soon in order to generate the rest,
>> >> extract it early. You still only need to load the fi
10 matches
Mail list logo
