On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 12:38:16PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: > On 08/30/05 Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > > On Monday 29 August 2005 22:52, Zac Medico wrote: > > > Brian Harring wrote: > > > > Please test this out; if you want to test the EAPI checking, tag > > > > EAPI=1 into an ebuild, and try making emerge bail. > > > > > > Well, it bails too often. :) > > > > > > It seems that an explicit integer conversion is needed for > and < > > > comparisons with mixed types > > > (2.0.51-eapi-awareness-emerge-int-conversion.patch). > > > > I don't think it is a wise path to interpret EAPI's as integers at > > all. There should not be guarantees of forward or backward > > compatibility between versions. Interpreting them as integers seems > > to imply that. Basically I think that EAPI could be anything wanted, > > similar to SLOTS. Of course using digits is easy for humans. > > I've to agree with Paul here, portage should hold a list of all EAPI > values it understands, not a maximum value. Stable knows of one version- so containment check versus > is moot; negated values are disallowed for eapi anyways. Note that the rewrite will do containment tests instead, but rewrite will also support eapi1 and eapi0 rather then just one. ~harring
pgpQ9RYM8c6Tk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
