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 1S79LI-0007Tb-0o for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:47:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 75A95E0C9B; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9680CE0C5F for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:46:54 +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 20FC01B4018 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:46:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F5E368C.5070505@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:46:52 -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: EAPI specification in ebuilds References: <4F58FC55.7070005@orlitzky.com> <20120308184820.108fc30c@googlemail.com> <4F592612.6050203@orlitzky.com> <20120309060424.09cdce1e@pomiocik.lan> <4F599692.9050503@orlitzky.com> <20120309172921.281ee5a0@pomiocik.lan> <4F5A368D.2020605@orlitzky.com> <20314.14772.897891.110368@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <4F5A3E6C.4040900@orlitzky.com> <4F5A4246.8080605@gentoo.org> <20120312020344.GE7579@localhost> <4F5DA0FE.1070405@gentoo.org> <20120312092711.7dbd969f@pomiocik.lan> <20120312083019.3d38ffa0@googlemail.com> <20120312100904.55b1a577@pomiocik.lan> <4F5E2C02.6030802@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 706c7cf3-dcb3-4ac3-9cf3-8483d6c394e6 X-Archives-Hash: 5819b5343d40b6c8668cfe1ec0636fd1 On 03/12/2012 10:30 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> It would be very fragile without the sanity check / feedback mechanism >> that's already been suggested. > > Another obvious check is to have repoman run a grep with the regexp > and give an error if there is not exactly one match. If we want to handle every possible screwup, including stray EAPI assignments inside inherited eclasses, we still need to compare the probed value to the value that's obtained from bash. I guess you're hinting at using a non-bash ebuild format? Even if in that case, the the package manager should simply use whatever interpreter is appropriate for the probed EAPI. So, if EAPI 7 is a posix-shell format, and the probed EAPI is 7, then the package manager should source the ebuild with it's posix-shell instead of bash. If the probed EAPI is not a supported EAPI, then it should skip the sourcing entirely, and report the ebuild as having an unsupported EAPI. -- Thanks, Zac