On Sunday 18 July 2010 04:54:43 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 18-07-2010 00:58, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:56:05AM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >> case ${EAPI:-0} in
> >>
> >> 2|3|4) ;;
> >> *) DEPEND="EAPI-TOO-OLD" ;;
> >>
> >> esac
> >>
> >> why not:
> >>
> >> case ${EAPI:-0} in
> >>
> >> 0|1) DEPEND="EAPI-TOO-OLD" ;;
> >>
> >> esac
>
> Alexis,
>
> the problem with your alternative is that it's "too clever" and won't
> die/kill/stop the processing of the eclass for newer EAPIs that at any
> point in time no one can be sure will be compatible with the current
> eclass design.
> That's why it has been agreed that eclasses should specifically list all
> supported EAPI versions and die/kill/stop on all other EAPI versions.
Fair enough. Why is EAPI 4 in that list then ? Has it been approved/finalized
yet ?
Alexis.
