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 1S797f-0005XB-BK for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:33:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D492AE0CB5; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C982BE0C9D for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:30:51 +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 ED35E1B400A for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:30:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F5E32C6.6010700@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:30:46 -0700 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 : .ebuild is only bash References: <20120312155927.2cca0d3b@googlemail.com> <20318.11498.463319.52140@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120312171228.48c5b023@googlemail.com> <4F5E2F9B.4060803@orlitzky.com> In-Reply-To: <4F5E2F9B.4060803@orlitzky.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 1578cf54-15fe-4678-9aca-92509546afed X-Archives-Hash: ebfc810d974e1d3bfe28a2e189e7bb7b On 03/12/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 03/12/12 13:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100 >> Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is >>> still not needed. >> >> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55 >> definitely works, whereas other solutions might work so long as we >> don't do something unexpected. >> >> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to >> use GLEP 55. >> > > Not understanding any of the politics involved, what are the technical > arguments against it? I think the bulk of resistance has been due to its use of an infinite series of extensions, like .ebuild-5, .ebuild-6 and so on. GLEP 55 itself has since been amended to include a "one time extension change" option [1]. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html#eapi-in-the-filename-with-one-time-extension-change -- Thanks, Zac