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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-50130-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1S65BN-0005Tn-L5
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:08:53 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 13457E06EE;
Fri, 9 Mar 2012 19:08:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0ADE06A6
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 19:08:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so1632400bkw.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:08:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=egb96D9DXJe/GclgMAPNqiF+Ofrfs8gWExeIkTmKY88=;
b=cx/SktuaclJX7xQFke6JYZ+Nsdzr9NjH1bVmMXwo6I0d2JpR9G4RSmP8bwP7KjB+Jn
rBjKwEuavuMSSRpCfW4Qo3kGCFqEs5Ew7Gqat+73JW11uO1DyuyecHC2vYk4joAwIL8F
3lm5XOsHCYJyCWQGs4GCygJ1unSEQKaSLRRF1/jJdgh1rBQTvX3l0uc4YNF8qi42zq1c
PUYwQDacWyXbVLQr9XCDshNX8TPO6KJpHtiuZdiW9iFUq90QX2T/eHF0jKvfGm0/bxor
W52Mnu1Lw2kurcUAzzzwKg/ofMNusmClZdRIppwpbzFQw1OD7iBZNABbtIc0y1eQs72Z
F6bw==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.152.27 with SMTP id e27mr1354644bkw.55.1331320093248; Fri,
09 Mar 2012 11:08:13 -0800 (PST)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.205.32.194 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:08:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F5A4246.8080605@gentoo.org>
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>
<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>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:08:13 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MzzHpwR_7y64_buVGBSHX_BJzF8
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_navt87mWjjnZdNEX2rOWwZLfhC_O5k8=zds2NfFe=sYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: 60d8028a-0be2-4c85-ac4f-3d33e3dde7c8
X-Archives-Hash: 48c690101022b81fea0ac7aef58a4fd7
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Anyway, lets focus on our main goal, which is to decide on a way to
> obtain the EAPI _without_ sourcing the ebuild.
Agreed. Plus, an approach that either uses the filename or something
like a comment line is also going to be much more flexible if bash
syntax changes substantially, or if we want to support
ebuilds-in-python or some other approach.
That is the main merit I see to the shebang approach - you could
define some kind of API that actually involves executing the ebuild.
Sticking the EAPI in the filename is a little less complicated and it
gives you the same flexibility - I'm not aware of any file format that
is fussy about the content of the filename.
Even approaches like putting EAPI=5 in the file (even inside a
comment) might break if the file is meant to be generally interpreted
by some program that has rigid syntax rules. Most scripting
languages could probably handle this somehow, but if you ever wanted
ELF ebuilds that wouldn't be so likely to fly unless you could embed
\nEAPI=ELF8\n in something near the start of the file.
Sure, I doubt we'll ever want ELF ebuilds (I'd consider
non-programatic ebuilds for more trivial packages more likely), but
the point is that we should prefer options that offer more flexibility
down the road over ones that solve the immediate need but just leave
us with the same debate two years from now.
Rich