Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

[Marc Schiffbauer <mschiff@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1473 bytes --]

* Zac Medico schrieb am 08.03.12 um 17:30 Uhr:
> On 03/08/2012 01:42 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> > * Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 08.03.12 um 08:27 Uhr:
> >> Such constructs also cannot be used with any of the other proposed
> >> solutions. And in fact, nobody is using such things in practice.
> >> _All_ ebuilds in the Portage tree can be successfully parsed with the
> >> regexp proposed.
> >
> > Ebuilds are bash scripts. I think introducing exceptions or
> > constraints here is not straightforward.
> 
> Given that ebuilds already have to conform to a vast number of 
> constraints that ordinary bash scripts do not. I think that it's 
> perfectly reasonable for ebuilds to have a constrained syntax for EAPI 
> assignments.

There are constraints in ebuilds, right. But its an *ebuild* in the
end, not an ordinary shell script. Thats true.

So if EAPI is very special, and I am now convinced it is, then well, 
this might be the most important contraint in an ebuild at all.

If that is true I would vote to keep this as simple as possible:

* EAPI *must* *be* the first non-Argument / shell code in an ebuild
* The value of EAPI in the assignment *MUST* *NOT* contain any
  other variables or other shell substitutions.

Period. Done.

* That would be the least invasive change.
* Could easily be checked by repoman
* Is easy parsable by other programs (python code)

-Marc
-- 
8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317  3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]