On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:13:06 +0200, Petteri Räty <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17.2.2010 16.33, Torsten Veller wrote: > >> >>> --- eutils.eclass 15 Feb 2010 02:10:39 -0000 1.330 >>> +++ eutils.eclass 17 Feb 2010 14:13:16 -0000 >>> @@ -50,6 +50,15 @@ >>> done >>> fi >>> } >>> +else >>> + ebeep() { >>> + eqawarn "ebeep is not defined in EAPI=3, please file >> >> The problem here is that eqawarn isn't defined in EAPI 3. >> > > Just shows that committing things to central eclasses without review is > a bad thing. I improved the code so that it doesn't at least call > eqawarn without first checking if it exists. Instead of code like this > in the eclasses, I think this should be done by Portage grepping logs. I > think it's already running searches over it for gcc things any way.
What is going on with all these undocumented changes? When I look at the council logs to see what is in EAPI3, I don't see anything about removing functions. This is just silly and wastes alot of people's time for no practical gain. In my EAPI3 portage, bin/isolated-functions.sh still has eqawarn() defined. So, what am I missing now? Also, other people think it is OK to change the behavior of functions and not document it in devmanual? > Regards, > Petteri
