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 1S5gWh-0004Nq-TG for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:49:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B7E9E0896; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:48:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 166AEE084D for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:47:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com (mail-qy0-f181.google.com [209.85.216.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: floppym) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D53D1B4009 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:47:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qcsk26 with SMTP id k26so509245qcs.40 for ; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:47:44 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.229.135.208 with SMTP id o16mr1188610qct.120.1331225264034; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:47:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.25.199 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:47:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20311.51166.725757.212932@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <20311.51166.725757.212932@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:47:43 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds From: Mike Gilbert To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 30fabf18-b50b-41e8-ad7a-213cee77b3f1 X-Archives-Hash: dcbf2e9ed9f22701b0379a5d508a91a9 On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Again, the proposal comes in two variants: > 2a) It is combined with a one time change of the file extension, like > =C2=A0 =C2=A0.ebuild -> .eb. > 2b) The usual EAPI assignment statement in the ebuild is still > =C2=A0 =C2=A0required, at least for a transition period. > Just throwing my opinion in: I like proposal 2 better than proposal 1. Placing a regex-based constraint on a bash variable assignment doesn't feel right to me. I slightly prefer 2a over 2b because it feels cleaner. I'm sure it will break some tools, but I don't have a good feel for the scope of that breakage.