On 18/07/2021 21:52, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote:
> Move EAPI check and EXPORT_FUNCTIONS on top, before include guard.
> Standardise include guard.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Sturmlechner <ast...@gentoo.org>
> ---
>  eclass/check-reqs.eclass | 20 ++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/eclass/check-reqs.eclass b/eclass/check-reqs.eclass
> index 5c4a420ee06..70c740d0363 100644
> --- a/eclass/check-reqs.eclass
> +++ b/eclass/check-reqs.eclass
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
>  # @AUTHOR:
>  # Bo Ørsted Andresen <z...@gentoo.org>
>  # Original Author: Ciaran McCreesh <ciar...@gentoo.org>
> -# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 4 5 6 7
> +# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 4 5 6 7 8
>  # @BLURB: Provides a uniform way of handling ebuild which have very high 
> build requirements

I know that this patch did not introduce it, but there is a typo here
('ebuild' should be 'ebuilds'). Is this something that can be fixed now?

>  # @DESCRIPTION:
>  # This eclass provides a uniform way of handling ebuilds which have very high
> @@ -38,7 +38,15 @@
>  # These checks should probably mostly work on non-Linux, and they should
>  # probably degrade gracefully if they don't. Probably.
>  
> -if [[ ! ${_CHECK_REQS_ECLASS_} ]]; then
> +case ${EAPI:-0} in
> +     4|5|6|7|8) ;;
> +     *) die "${ECLASS}: EAPI=${EAPI:-0} is not supported" ;;
> +esac
> +
> +EXPORT_FUNCTIONS pkg_pretend pkg_setup
> +
> +if [[ ! ${_CHECK_REQS_ECLASS} ]]; then
> +_CHECK_REQS_ECLASS=1
>  
>  # @ECLASS-VARIABLE: CHECKREQS_MEMORY
>  # @DEFAULT_UNSET
> @@ -60,13 +68,6 @@ if [[ ! ${_CHECK_REQS_ECLASS_} ]]; then
>  # @DESCRIPTION:
>  # How much space is needed in /var? Eg.: CHECKREQS_DISK_VAR=3000M
>  
> -case ${EAPI:-0} in
> -     4|5|6|7) ;;
> -     *) die "${ECLASS}: EAPI=${EAPI:-0} is not supported" ;;
> -esac
> -
> -EXPORT_FUNCTIONS pkg_pretend pkg_setup
> -
>  # Obsolete function executing all the checks and printing out results
>  check_reqs() {
>       eerror "Package calling old ${FUNCNAME} function."
> @@ -357,5 +358,4 @@ check-reqs_unsatisfied() {
>       CHECKREQS_FAILED="true"
>  }
>  
> -_CHECK_REQS_ECLASS_=1
>  fi
> 

Reply via email to