Re: [gentoo-pms] [PATCH] EAPI must be at least a single char.

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:52:40PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/30/2012 12:44 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > tries to write a PM, likely fucking that up.  If what you were saying 
> > was the actual intention behind it, that assignment would've just been 
> > along the lines of EAPI=("[^"]*"|'[^']*'|[^\t ]); aka "here's how you 
> > grab what looks like an EAPI assignment".
> 
> I would have preferred a regex that just matches any assignment like
> this, but didn't feel like bikeshedding it, since the one that's
> currently in the spec works in practice.

Counter point; portage doesn't actually enforce the rules of a valid 
EAPI name; correct me if I'm wrong obviously, but in checking the 
source, didn't see any such validation.

If the regex were as I suggested, that would be a non issue and we'd 
have *guranteed* EAPI name compliance- else it wouldn't match the 
invalid EAPI, and would stop looking at that line (falling back to 
EAPI=0).

Basically, I'd like y'all to spell out the actual gains of having it 
loose like this, especailly in light of the fact the majority PM, via 
relying on that alone, doesn't do EAPI value enforcement.

If we used the regex I suggested in the second email, this issue goes 
away, and we remove a potential landmine.

Clarify to me why that landmine should be left in place.

~harring