On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 11:00 +, Corentin “Nado” Pazdera wrote:
> May 24, 2019 11:39 AM, "David Seifert" wrote:
>
> > +case ${EAPI} in
> > + [4-7]) ;;
> > + *) die "EAPI=${EAPI:-0} is not supported" ;;
> > +esac
> > +
>
> Hi,
>
> I often wondered, why using a eapi-whitelisting logic instead o
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:37 AM David Seifert wrote:
>
> * Also limit to EAPIs that are in use at the moment.
>
> Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/685382
> Signed-off-by: David Seifert
> ---
Alright, I give in. This looks fine to me.
May 24, 2019 11:39 AM, "David Seifert" wrote:
> +case ${EAPI} in
> + [4-7]) ;;
> + *) die "EAPI=${EAPI:-0} is not supported" ;;
> +esac
> +
Hi,
I often wondered, why using a eapi-whitelisting logic instead of
eapi-blacklisting?
This kind of change forces to touch the eclass for the next eapi b
* Also limit to EAPIs that are in use at the moment.
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/685382
Signed-off-by: David Seifert
---
eclass/savedconfig.eclass | 21 ++---
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/savedconfig.eclass b/eclass/savedconfig.eclass
