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 1LcM7E-00086M-9C for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:56:08 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D83DEE0767; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:56:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82B3E0767 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:56:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.9] (unknown [151.57.3.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E206964F20 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:56:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <49A56A14.2080400@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:56:04 +0100 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081205) 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] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <1234450419.20950.2.camel@localhost> <20090212160045.GB3642@comet> <20090212161644.GD3642@comet> <20090212162103.256b003f@snowcone> <20090212171055.GA3652@comet> <20090212172109.778fb268@snowcone> <20090212173743.GD3652@comet> <20090212180350.0d9a9df5@snowcone> <1235037961.13198.779.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> <49A39CE7.4010201@gentoo.org> <20090224141912.0a666a17@snowcone> <49A41A8C.1060002@gentoo.org> <20090224161449.07bc580a@snowcone> <49A42B86.9010903@gentoo.org> <20090224182416.3db4f60f@snowcone> <49A4B54E.4060202@gentoo.org> <20090225153347.3e9aaafa@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20090225153347.3e9aaafa@snowcone> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2b0a5f58-a41d-49c0-a8d6-71eb1b336621 X-Archives-Hash: 12435859827c06a969e54c133ba3a95e Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:04:46 +0100 > Luca Barbato wrote: >> given that the simplest thing is hacking ebuild.sh and extract eapi >> with a simple C program (you can use pcre or ragel if you want) >> exactly before the ebuild source: > > That you're bringing ebuild.sh into this shows you still haven't worked > out how the process works. There is no need to use ebuild.sh (which is > a very good thing, because launching bash is slooooooooooooow) when > there's valid metadata. it there is a valid metadata you have everything there already and you don't have to parse the ebuild so... >>> So you have patches for Portage? Please show them. >> Up there what's enough to check the viability for the solution. > > No, it's completely wrong. ebuild.sh has nothing to do with this. Is there another place in portage that extracts the EAPI value? > Yes, it will warn noisily. This is unacceptable, since stable users > will have months and months of noise when new rules come along. "unacceptable"... as in "it's ugly to see"... lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero