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 1S5iE6-0004IU-9N for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:38:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0322BE09C6; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 18:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2.viabit.com (mail2.viabit.com [65.246.80.16]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B816EE09C2 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 18:37:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.29.6] (unknown [65.213.236.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.viabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC069D8DE9 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:37:12 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=orlitzky.com; s=mail2; t=1331231833; bh=D/0kVQNEh/Vprx6ui51fMUQm5+WXShcwIL9N4icoBik=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=MVrYJcrw7a1X8Mz4bU3WE381n3BNsxFPBZJjHZr4tll4kY7bOAPsxDJMULvvJW4dr +CVapqXDodHWmrnHF4H4WIUgs2HnAb5rx2ZIdmLfVOPueNSS3IGgCMMI81b5ngX6Fl cUyV0dQZU8R6bO1fNbhUNruAHGqU1hjiH5J8ww18= Message-ID: <4F58FC55.7070005@orlitzky.com> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:37:09 -0500 From: Michael Orlitzky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120121 Thunderbird/9.0 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> <4F57DDB5.3090503@orlitzky.com> <20120308130310.69c3c714@pomiocik.lan> <4F58D6A5.7070804@orlitzky.com> <20120308182844.11201771@pomiocik.lan> <4F58F103.5010503@orlitzky.com> <20120308175345.2c4b72ff@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120308175345.2c4b72ff@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 7a963362-a8b3-4aae-a4c1-16ea490d52fa X-Archives-Hash: 692bfd89484afa97f2a622ecd0ab97a6 On 03/08/2012 12:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:48:51 -0500 > Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 03/08/2012 12:28 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >>> And something will need to provide that /usr/bin/eapi4 thing. And >>> that introduces new problems: >> >> I'm just parroting someone else's suggestion; I don't really know >> enough about the details to answer these properly. Not that that will >> stop me. > > It probably should. Although in the early days the model for ebuilds > was that they were scripts that were "executed", nowadays there's so > much support required that it's better to think of ebuilds as being > data. If you did have a /usr/bin/eapi5, it would have to be implemented > as something that invoked the package manager, not as a direct > interpreter. Fair enough, but aren't you arguing the opposite point with Zac? If=20 ebuilds are data, fine, we write EAPI=3D4 somewhere and be done with it.=20 Anything not having that format is out-of-spec. If they're code, they're code, and we need to execute them somehow. And=20 the reason for the proposal in the first place was that the way we do it=20 now ain't so great, eh?