On Tuesday 04 October 2005 03:30, Brian Harring wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 01:06:35AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > Don't like the size of this patch, but it's quite repetitive so... > > Wouldn't worry on the repetitive, it's repetitive due to the fact the > *dbapi classes don't (ab|)use inheritance... > > > * Make all aux_get() functions return a list of strings again > > Why is this a good thing for EAPI?
Consistency. There is no mapping of names to types so any tool that uses aux_get to enumerate values and assumes that they are strings (as they have always been and still are for every other key) would break. > > * Move the EAPI validity check into a separate function > > * Raise a specific UnsupportedAPIException instead of plain Exception No problem with these two? > > * Mark metadata of unsupported EAPIs as "INVALID" rather than -1 > > This doesn't really fly imo. You mark it as invalid, and _no_ portage > version (regardless of it's ability to handle that EAPI) will _ever_ > regenerate that entry. > > An old portage version updating the cache would make certain nodes > never usable. > > The -1 is wrong, should be -EAPI. So negative numbers signals invalid cache entries in the scheme? > This however is getting back into > the "eapi should be freeform, not just ints", which I thought I > clarified why it should be ints (or people shut up instead of > listening to me argue it). :) The only reasoning that I recall without checking is that it wouldn't complicate certain code paths. That's not a valid reason, in my opinion. Can leave that debate alone though. s/INVALID/\-1/ in the patch works for me. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
