From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EEAD138334 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 12:14:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6C25E08DB; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 12:14:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CAADE08CE for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 12:14:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (c142-245.icpnet.pl [85.221.142.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D89634D855; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 12:14:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] python-any-r1.eclass: Constrain to EAPI >= 5 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, David Seifert Cc: python@gentoo.org Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:14:32 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20191214105036.315604-1-soap@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-wHIodKBuoAobMJtdjegp" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 6e6fafb2-22ea-4d6e-a81d-5b25211a10a7 X-Archives-Hash: 5bed4e938d66c9bd9109233472f77251 --=-wHIodKBuoAobMJtdjegp Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2019-12-14 at 12:29 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019, David Seifert wrote: > > case "${EAPI:-0}" in > > - 0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7) > > + [01234]) > > + die "Unsupported EAPI=3D${EAPI:-0} (too old) for ${ECLASS}" > > + ;; > > + [567]) > > ;; > > *) > > die "Unsupported EAPI=3D${EAPI} (unknown) for ${ECLASS}" >=20 > I know that this exists in other eclasses as well, but do we really need > that distinction in the error message for "too old" and "unknown" EAPIs? > It should be pretty clear which case applies there, especially since the > message is addressed at developers, not users. >=20 Maybe not strictly necessary right now but it gives a clear distinction whether the eclass hasn't been ported *yet* vs *won't* be ported at all. This helps avoid people trying to add new EAPIs to eclasses that are being deprecated. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-wHIodKBuoAobMJtdjegp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGTBAABCgB9FiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAl300ihfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM3 NkE4NDUwOTQwOThEMjhDQzhCMjZDNTYzOUFEQUUyMzI5RTI0MEUACgkQY5ra4jKe JA4zMwf/XEApMLOGCvZ/AxxlHJRCkurZBXWPpkoKH3iGWlrPV2Q8A3H20Nf9e2+9 mKW0OAi36h2AP+1PIl5IJTgpeEKLWFhRfGaRKz18Qk5DSngO4P06QwC86Wew89+o b9n7MECFGZlwb/76bK4KUVG5XhzF6+ESIM4JTIH2fVvk1UcfAhKjeSf1psxx/lPg HnAc7LFVEdauHam6DbABluzlKnqAbLBgJK/8/gu40NWxJA2Vx/VZ/sPBwllKLNg8 U5cdkPQLaostY9mL8J8cPax1qtfSVSOzowuIuseUceuT50+1Gv+vFOYnK585yMVC 1/oXQMzWwdMFBWtKQnorT9TTyjukWw== =w6pL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-wHIodKBuoAobMJtdjegp--