Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-08 Thread David Leverton
On Sunday 08 March 2009 05:22:03 Donnie Berkholz wrote: FYI, using EXPORT_FUNCTIONS before inherit, as this patch caused x-modular.eclass to do, is broken in current portage releases. Zac said he would change this to be consistent with the lack of any ordering restriction in the PMS. Thanks to

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-08 Thread Alistair Bush
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2009, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Any thoughts? + *) + die Unknown EAPI ${EAPI} + ;; Is is safe to assume that an unknown EAPI will

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-08 Thread Zac Medico
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Leverton wrote: On Sunday 08 March 2009 05:22:03 Donnie Berkholz wrote: FYI, using EXPORT_FUNCTIONS before inherit, as this patch caused x-modular.eclass to do, is broken in current portage releases. Zac said he would change this to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-07 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Any thoughts? + *) + die Unknown EAPI ${EAPI} + ;; Is is safe to assume that an unknown EAPI will provide a die function? Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-07 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2009, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Any thoughts? +             *) +                     die Unknown EAPI ${EAPI} +                         ;; Is is safe to assume that an unknown EAPI will provide a die

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-07 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 12:57 Fri 06 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote: I decided to try something a little different because I had some ideas for improving the existing EAPI patches I've seen going into other eclasses. So here is my patch for x-modular.eclass. I tested it with ebuilds using EAPIs 0, 1, and 2,

[gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-06 Thread Donnie Berkholz
I decided to try something a little different because I had some ideas for improving the existing EAPI patches I've seen going into other eclasses. So here is my patch for x-modular.eclass. I tested it with ebuilds using EAPIs 0, 1, and 2, and it appeared to work fine. It already happened to

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-06 Thread Petteri Räty
Donnie Berkholz wrote: I decided to try something a little different because I had some ideas for improving the existing EAPI patches I've seen going into other eclasses. So here is my patch for x-modular.eclass. I tested it with ebuilds using EAPIs 0, 1, and 2, and it appeared to work

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-06 Thread Rémi Cardona
Le 06/03/2009 21:57, Donnie Berkholz a écrit : Any thoughts? Looks pretty good to me. I don't have much else to say :) Cheers, Rémi