From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S5ghZ-0006CJ-CI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:00:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 058C9E0692; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:00:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A789CE0808 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:59:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.43] (unknown [96.231.195.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA3AD64C5D for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1331225973.4519.21.camel@rook> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds From: Alexandre Rostovtsev To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:59:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120308162902.4bc8e352@googlemail.com> References: <20311.51166.725757.212932@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20312.24445.451487.577826@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <4F58CFE3.8070408@gentoo.org> <4F58DCA1.2040000@gentoo.org> <20120308162902.4bc8e352@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: d2967b91-6eca-45e0-a2e3-c31623044076 X-Archives-Hash: 710644a48f617f3089b3a90372513222 On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 16:29 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > And you believe that having exactly one place inside ebuild text where > there are different whitespace, quoting and indenting rules for > something that otherwise looks exactly like any other metadata variable > isn't going to cause problems? In light of the fact that all 29758 ebuilds in portage already satisfy the proposed whitespace, quoting, and indenting constrains on EAPI assignment, the probability of problems appears to be vanishingly small. And "vanishingly small" and can be reduced to zero by simply adding a check to repoman. Can you come up with a sane scenario under which an ebuild writer would want to use a different syntax for setting EAPI? -Alexandre