On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:38:32 +0400 Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > В Вск, 13/07/2008 в 23:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: > > Which part of the 'Problem' section in the GLEP didn't you > > understand? Do you seriously consider not being able to add or > > change global scope functions in future EAPIs to be a non-issue, or > > were you ignoring those two bullet points? > > I've read all previous discussions but still miss answer to the > question: Why is it impossible to state that .ebuild extension is for > bash based ebuild make package manager get and filter EAPIs based on > EAPI variable?
I think your question is missing a word or something. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to ask... But if you're asking why we can't use the EAPI variable, it's because we can't get the EAPI variable unless we already know what it is. It's only possible currently because all EAPIs have identical global scope functions and environment requirements, but future EAPIs want to change things there. > In any case I'd like to understand why should we start support this > hell of extensions. Why do you think it's hell? It's just as easy as having an EAPI variable inside the ebuild, and has the added advantage that your editor of choice can start doing EAPI-aware syntax highlighting for you. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
