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 1S5gFN-0001xr-Qs for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:31:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 14DF4E081A; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:31:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32343E0700 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:30:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbfm10 with SMTP id fm10so614645wgb.10 for ; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:30:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; bh=K+qfAKIcGfLaDPHjpit2IsHK3sfawr8Dg7SkMqvFw38=; b=YeO6IiiGT4IB5GE1vle4OuzEbH7oFPQ8qSqbna8b8bkXt2Pg4E8YJurNezwCwJCCk5 jevsuoXYb+/TdwBz+b/JOKBH5otuTp7/KZN5Anl/Hxgq1G1yQeOgsDy6r0MDHkQAeCec tfOVUoE2LjwHfpsPjaW+zcB1FO3fRpU3ieRkYSBMqY+giTs6NmvQ2VSdOvyveMmpadTI OEgzUb833ebS7jILDiZd8qNzUvgqGfq+21PqAw0WKHwNppV+DfSmnRAYEXvSuXvsBC2h DEKR0jV7G1WTQFW5cbpnNV6KyQafoOtI7FMT9ZvB+df+BKihmiY4bdYPtRnu5JlZ8twS nf+A== Received: by 10.180.92.229 with SMTP id cp5mr14178462wib.8.1331224210371; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:30:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (cpc13-broo7-2-0-cust130.14-2.cable.virginmedia.com. [82.9.16.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gf3sm45195591wib.6.2012.03.08.08.30.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:30:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:29:02 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds Message-ID: <20120308162902.4bc8e352@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F58DCA1.2040000@gentoo.org> 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> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/2NcLfh.yDniVL.nV+DIRE=a"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 0ede97f8-6b74-4392-9cd5-e7055142ecea X-Archives-Hash: 7e33b4a7da193c8388468a1d719f87a1 --Sig_/2NcLfh.yDniVL.nV+DIRE=a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:21:53 -0800 Zac Medico wrote: > Maybe that sort of distinction truly makes a difference to some > people, but to me it just seems like hair-splitting [1]. So just to get this straight, you think that the following two restrictions are effectively equivalent? * The variable DEPEND's value must be set according to the following rules: * The EAPI variable assignment must not use full bash syntax. Instead, it must be assigned according to the following rules: 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? --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/2NcLfh.yDniVL.nV+DIRE=a Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9Y3lEACgkQ96zL6DUtXhFDGwCgkbRHSYFoCg2g7etU1BXbL6M0 HoUAoOamUkqzcg3xxx72cWtfUHpn+IAw =PU3a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/2NcLfh.yDniVL.nV+DIRE=a--