Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

[Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>]

On 03/11/2012 07:03 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> Pragmatic reality, the eapi function actually would work fine.  As 
> pointed out elsewhere, bash parses as it goes- which isn't going to 
> change.
> 
> If someone invokes 'eapi happy-meal' and it's not supported, 
> the sourcing is stopped immediately, cache gets -happy-meal for the 
> EAPI, and the pm continues to ignore the ebuild till either the 
> ebuilds mtime changes (which case it redoes the metadata regen) or the 
> PM now supports that EAPI, and... you guessed it, redoes the metadata 
> regen.  The cache behaviour is basically the same regardless of the 
> EAPI mechanism.
> 
> Now, this isn't to say everyone views the function as *optimal*.  
> People can argue about that as much as they'd like.
> 
> The point however is that it *would* work.  Anyone claiming 
> fragility/otherwise needs to put forth actual code examples.

Suppose that EAPI 5 requires bash-5. There may be bash-5 syntax in the
ebuild prior to your eapi() function call, causing a fatal syntax error.

>> Anyway, lets focus on our main goal, which is to decide on a way to
>> obtain the EAPI _without_ sourcing the ebuild.
> 
> Nitpicking, but the point needs be made; this is *your* requirement.  
> The requirement is to be able to deploy new globals/bash 
> requirements/whatever.

Well, I think most people would tend to accept my requirement, and that
it falls within the realm of common-sense if avoiding unnecessary
complexity is one of our goals.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac