On 08/30/05 Brian Harring wrote: > 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.
Problem is that you then rely on python always evaluating "somestring" > 0 as True which I don't think is a good idea (it holds true even for "0" > 0), if you treat 0 as a string you get problems (as some strings are > "smaller" than 0) and you can't convert all strings to ints. What's the point of using > anyway? Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. -- [email protected] mailing list
