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 1S5Oz7-0003kg-Pf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:05:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D08C1E0605; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:05:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gx0-f181.google.com (mail-gx0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42A7E02CB for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:04:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggni4 with SMTP id i4so3746931ggn.40 for ; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:04:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=xIjXO33WfQO/1GnIOAYI+pyI5706Haivw6FKAoI/+DA=; b=m6n0Z97eUdLIwczL6Pl70jmf2NYohJFu9iN2nU/7cwqG/fK4A3O2zHiYKXbXBCbayA kCJxZAGNDcrlWwLUGciugyE0JTB3zN2qlWfogSHqI+QXsxe6kG3MCBp/rtk4aT0mkwMO /JDifG91tu0K0DLPTQirZS+j7W/PCy/vyeG88hdm7aU2U+QHl3AEQ6+5aVUXlDcnkxLh HvyQniLeKkOU2rsXj8JUDMtyKgy+e3wNsirEAStUZQ3EtkGQ+xvDU132Xdan9pcCT11F eaf4HEC8awiMZ2l8S2zLrbXHYyL8cXxcVgl+ZORebdsvrBjvbmhR+w5TxZXFvoEIrRLn XM4A== 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 10.101.19.5 with SMTP id w5mr2205368ani.86.1331157859179; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:04:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.89.9 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 14:04:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120307180743.64569b51@gentoo.org> References: <20311.51166.725757.212932@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120307180743.64569b51@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:04:18 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds From: David Leverton To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: d67b82ed-a045-4896-9a20-d1b354b336b0 X-Archives-Hash: 390b787371a85e2737e027e477135b0c On 7 March 2012 21:07, Alexis Ballier wrote: > As i understand it, $PM will need to try the regexp tingy on any ebuild > anyway, guess the EAPI then source the ebuild with the right sourcer > to get the real EAPI and compare it. Not exactly... the idea with proposal 2) is that the header comment becomes the One True Way to set the EAPI, so it wouldn't be "guessing" as such, and ebuilds wouldn't be allowed to change it during sourcing any more than they can redefine PV or the like. As mentioned, 2b) still risks a mismatch between the header and the assignment, but hopefully that would be temporary and the assignments could be dropped eventually. (And I'd suggest that the header EAPI is still considered authoritative if present - the mismatch check should probably be a hard error, or if not it should generate a warning and use the header value. There should be minimal if any risk of this changing behaviour for any existing ebuild, since existing ebuilds almost certainly won't match the chosen header syntax.) As for my opinion, I would prefer 2a), or 2b) as a second choice. IMHO it's much simpler and cleaner to come up with a strict, well-defined header format than to try and work within (an arbitrarily restricted version of) bash syntax.