From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S5fGk-0000mW-4l for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:28:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 23CE7E0671; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:28:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4540EE0595 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:27:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3B501B4010 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:27:32 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F58CFE3.8070408@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 07:27:31 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120304 Thunderbird/10.0.1 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] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds References: <20311.51166.725757.212932@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20312.24445.451487.577826@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 31646bfe-345b-4cb5-85a5-e8cb7eb18236 X-Archives-Hash: 2c0649c9b07b8ad7cc086256356ecc9e On 03/08/2012 12:13 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> 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. > > I'm not saying they are valid EAPI syntax; but they are all valid > bash. I tend to assume all authors are as...ignorant as myself. Lets > not give them the rope to hang themselves. Something like DEPEND="foo bar" is also valid bash, and yet we don't allow that either because "foo bar" does not contain valid dependency atoms. Also, keep in mind that we're not allowing people to "hang themselves" with invalid EAPI assignments. We'll simply give them a reasonable error message so that they can quickly and easily correct their mistake. -- Thanks, Zac