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 1M4ino-0007CH-1B for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 14 May 2009 21:49:20 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B4EAE0395; Thu, 14 May 2009 21:49:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com (cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com [75.180.132.121]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E2EE0395 for ; Thu, 14 May 2009 21:49:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from linux1.localdomain ([66.25.35.110]) by cdptpa-omta04.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090514214916658.NDV9927@cdptpa-omta04.mail.rr.com> for ; Thu, 14 May 2009 21:49:16 +0000 Received: by linux1.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C004F43C03; Thu, 14 May 2009 16:49:09 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:49:09 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55 Message-ID: <20090514214909.GA23080@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <200905142006.51998.patrick@gentoo.org> <4A0C790A.1050209@gentoo.org> <20090514231623.409c8eb7@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-action=pgp-signed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090514231623.409c8eb7@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Archives-Salt: 94724930-343e-4475-859e-1fad88e5b1e4 X-Archives-Hash: e189e0be8342b489f88dc29d3dd40010 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I realize that I'm asking this very late in the discussion, so please bear with me if it has been hashed before. On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:16:23PM +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote: > We need a mechanism to be able to use newer bash-features in ebuilds. > Preferably one that doesn't go "Wait a couple of years, hope > everyone did X then Just Do it." We want one that goes like "Get a new > EAPI approved with new minimum bash-version attached, start using cool > stuff like ( Bash-4.0 ): > Personally, I like the first version better. It would be cool if we > could start using it sooner. GLEP-55 provides the "clean" solution, by > just making the file name indicate what's inside. No need to parse, no > nothing. Portage is currently testing a "first line with EAPI= > determines EAPI" method. That's slightly less clean, but has the added > benefit of not breaking anything that relies on .ebuild extension for > ebuilds and I think it's not an unreasonable limitation on ebuilds to > require EAPI= to be parseable by !bash. I don't know how strong this argument is, but here is my opinion about the issue, followed up with a question. The second solution seems to be the better one because it does not go against standards. For example, we see extentions like .c, .py and .pl, instead of .c-43, .py-25 and .pl-58. There are ways within the languages to tell which version of the compiler is compiling them as needed. So, If we say that, EAPI 4, for example, requires bash-4.0, Isn't there a way the PM could find out which version of bash is being run, compare that to the EAPI, then take appropriate action? - -- William Hubbs gentoo accessibility team lead williamh@gentoo.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoMkdUACgkQblQW9DDEZTihowCdEynGXsB0Z1r9y43VeWEs9JLF SrQAn2iNPikCR+tZHGyrv+ykr4y1D+81 =6F5i -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----