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 1J61CU-0007jR-8D for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:03:22 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lBMA21wh020286; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:02:01 GMT Received: from crux.i-cable.com (crux.i-cable.com [203.83.115.104]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lBM9wwmc014376 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:58:59 GMT Received: (qmail 5289 invoked by uid 107); 22 Dec 2007 09:58:57 -0000 Received: from 203.83.114.122 by crux (envelope-from , uid 104) with qmail-scanner-2.01 (clamdscan: 0.90.3/4349. spamassassin: 2.63. Clear:RC:1(203.83.114.122):SA:0(-2.2/5.0):. Processed in 6.520818 secs); 22 Dec 2007 09:58:57 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 X-Spam-Level: Received: from ip114122.hkicable.com (HELO xenon.i-cable.com) (203.83.114.122) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2007 09:58:51 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.100] (cm222-167-208-85.hkcable.com.hk [222.167.208.85]) by xenon.i-cable.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id lBM9woDY010146 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:58:50 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <476CE060.4010601@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:01:04 +0800 From: Zhang Le User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071123) 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] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [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> <20071218172143.GB4423@ferdyx.org> <20071219102951.515beeca@blueyonder.co.uk> <20071219111602.4122c53d@blueyonder.co.uk> <20071220035032.6312bed4@blueyonder.co.uk> <20071221004630.21fc6ad3@blueyonder.co.uk> <20071222072544.3fffbc22@blueyonder.co.uk> <476CD116.5070505@gentoo.org> <20071222090719.20333591@blueyonder.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20071222090719.20333591@blueyonder.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 OpenPGP: id=1E4E2973 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 37b60160-b655-417e-aa28-59cbf6293a0d X-Archives-Hash: 278d7a7beb3c0ba56aaedf75e899674a Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:55:50 +0800 > Zhang Le wrote: >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> Note *the way things are currently*. If you think this is untrue, >>> provide an algorithm that will correctly give the EAPI of any >>> current or future ebuild given that ebuild's filename (hint: you >>> can't). >> Simple. >> Whatever you'd like to have in the suffix, we can put it on the first >> line of the ebuild. >> Just go and get it, and that's the EAPI. > > Your algorithm: > > Does not work for existing ebuilds that have implicit EAPI 0. That's obvious. If no suffix, just treat it as EAPI 0. I thought I don't need to say this explicitly. > > Does not work for existing ebuilds that have explicit EAPI. Even better, since we don't need suffix in the first place. Just define it in ebuild. > > Does not work for future ebuilds. If defined in file does not work, then define in file name doesn't either. They are interchangeable. All could be get before sourcing. I know you'd say people will use all syntaxes to define. But how many are there? EAPI=1, EAPI="1" these are the two ways currently used in tree. A simple qgrep can show that. Two steps can guarantee you get the value 1. strip " 2. get the value -- Zhang Le, Robert GPG key ID: 1E4E2973 Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1E4E 2973 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list