From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LbmQA-0001se-Aq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:49:18 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D40DE0312; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:49:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms173007pub.verizon.net (vms173007pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.7]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D16E0312 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:49:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([68.162.77.20]) by vms173007.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KFJ00LFTRPRIDF7@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:49:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED241759E10 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:49:03 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <49A3520E.50904@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:49:02 -0500 From: Richard Freeman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090104) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> <1235378286.31617.6.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A26B84.7040006@gentoo.org> <1235383347.12908.0.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A2B276.1000109@gentoo.org> <49A2C40D.3060601@gentoo.org> <20090223132202.1cd1337e@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A3357B.1030403@gentoo.org> <20090223234926.28d9f1d2@snowcone> <49A33C8F.6030704@gentoo.org> <20090224001934.63f731f5@snowmobile> In-reply-to: <20090224001934.63f731f5@snowmobile> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5488dd32-4355-4440-a569-0b2cba1160b8 X-Archives-Hash: 8ff464eb6880afc31995da744d74b68b Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:17:19 -0500 > Richard Freeman wrote: >> It just seems like it isn't the best solution. You can get the same >> effect by just sticking something in a comment line a few lines into >> the ebuild in a fixed position. > > No you can't. It doesn't work with existing package managers, Agreed. This would require some delay in implementation and would require users to have some minimal package manager version to handle major changes in a repository. > and it > doesn't let you change name or version rules. > Neither does putting the EAPI in the filename as far as I can tell. It isn't like you want to have ebuild filenames like: foo-1.1.ebuild-\{EAPI\=1\ \;\ if\ \[\[\ \$PV\ =\ 2.6\ \]\]\ \;\ then\ EAPI\=2\ \;\ fi\} Putting the EAPI in the filename forces it to be a rigid constant for the purposes of determining how to parse the file. Putting the EAPI in a comment line does the same. Both allow for dynamic manipulation of the variable at a later stage of parsing, but this is after the package manager has committed to sourcing the file in some particular manner. If anything you get more flexibility putting it inside the file since at least you can make it very long without clogging up command lines.