From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J4QwJ-0003Be-1e for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:08:07 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lBI17BhL008322; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:07:11 GMT Received: from shadow.wildlava.net (shadow.wildlava.net [67.40.138.81]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBI14xMq005485 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:05:00 GMT Received: from [10.0.3.98] (mail.boulder.swri.edu [65.241.78.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shadow.wildlava.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C3C8F429 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:04:59 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <47671CD3.4010709@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:05:23 -0700 From: Joe Peterson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071119) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) References: <200712172320.01988.peper@gentoo.org> <47671006.2020808@gentoo.org> <20071218001855.78c1864c@blueyonder.co.uk> <20071218013651.58f4f565@eusebe> <20071218004325.41a3240f@blueyonder.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20071218004325.41a3240f@blueyonder.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a0f6ace1-54d7-4dc6-878f-41314210df20 X-Archives-Hash: d4602b6dfef3fbaa5469da6236a263c1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:36:51 +0100 > Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: >> Why can't it be in the file but readable without sourcing? For >> instance, it could be mandatory that EAPI=X, if present, must be the >> first non-blank and non-comment line of the ebuild (and it would then >> be checked after sourcing, if the ebuild is sourced, to bug on cases >> where it's redefined or unset afterwards). > > That's another option. It's considered less ideal because it's a nasty > hack -- it imposes restrictions beyond "it's bash" upon the format of > ebuilds. This option is worth thinking about more - there may be satisfactory ways to mediate the issues. It is certainly more elegant, and it avoids another nasty gotcha: that of the pre-source and post-source EAPI disagreeing. Generally, I find that having the same info in two places should be avoided whenever possible. I know the GLEP contains ways of determining the "real" EAPI in this case (post-source), but I can imagine most humans will simply get used to looking at the filename and potentially miss the fact that it doesn't match, and programs that look only pre-source can be mislead. -Joe -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list