On Sat, 2019-12-14 at 12:29 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019, David Seifert wrote:
> > case "${EAPI:-0}" in
> > - 0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7)
> > + [01234])
> > + die "Unsupported EAPI=${EAPI:-0} (too old) for ${ECLASS}"
> > + ;;
> > + [567])
> > ;;
> > *)
> > die "Unsupported EAPI=${EAPI} (unknown) for ${ECLASS}"
>
> I know that this exists in other eclasses as well, but do we really need
> that distinction in the error message for "too old" and "unknown" EAPIs?
> It should be pretty clear which case applies there, especially since the
> message is addressed at developers, not users.
> Maybe not strictly necessary right now but it gives a clear distinction whether the eclass hasn't been ported *yet* vs *won't* be ported at all. This helps avoid people trying to add new EAPIs to eclasses that are being deprecated. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
