Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-08 Thread Zac Medico
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Leverton wrote: > On Sunday 08 March 2009 05:22:03 Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> FYI, using EXPORT_FUNCTIONS before inherit, as this patch caused >> x-modular.eclass to do, is broken in current portage releases. Zac said >> he would change this to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-08 Thread Alistair Bush
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2009, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Any thoughts? + *) + die "Unknown EAPI ${EAPI}" + ;; Is is safe to assume that an unknown EAPI will provide a "di

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-08 Thread David Leverton
On Sunday 08 March 2009 05:22:03 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > FYI, using EXPORT_FUNCTIONS before inherit, as this patch caused > x-modular.eclass to do, is broken in current portage releases. Zac said > he would change this to be consistent with the lack of any ordering > restriction in the PMS. Thanks

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-07 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 12:57 Fri 06 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > I decided to try something a little different because I had some ideas > for improving the existing EAPI patches I've seen going into other > eclasses. So here is my patch for x-modular.eclass. I tested it with > ebuilds using EAPIs 0, 1, and 2,

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-07 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > >> Any thoughts? > >> +             *) >> +                     die "Unknown EAPI ${EAPI}" >> +                         ;; > > Is is safe to assume that an unknown EAPI will provide a "die" >

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-07 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Any thoughts? > + *) > + die "Unknown EAPI ${EAPI}" > + ;; Is is safe to assume that an unknown EAPI will provide a "die" function? Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-06 Thread Rémi Cardona
Le 06/03/2009 21:57, Donnie Berkholz a écrit : Any thoughts? Looks pretty good to me. I don't have much else to say :) Cheers, Rémi

Re: [gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-06 Thread Petteri Räty
Donnie Berkholz wrote: > I decided to try something a little different because I had some ideas > for improving the existing EAPI patches I've seen going into other > eclasses. So here is my patch for x-modular.eclass. I tested it with > ebuilds using EAPIs 0, 1, and 2, and it appeared to work f

[gentoo-dev] x-modular.eclass: A modified approach to EAPI support

2009-03-06 Thread Donnie Berkholz
I decided to try something a little different because I had some ideas for improving the existing EAPI patches I've seen going into other eclasses. So here is my patch for x-modular.eclass. I tested it with ebuilds using EAPIs 0, 1, and 2, and it appeared to work fine. It already happened to ha