| 1 |
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:43:59 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Because a) a future EAPI might want to change EAPI into a function |
| 4 |
> > rather than a variable, b) there are a zillion ways of setting a |
| 5 |
> > variable in bash and people already use all of them and c) |
| 6 |
> > introducing new weird format requirements is silly. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So you're proposing putting the function into the filename? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
No, I'm saying that the data goes into the filename. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> As he stated, the only credible reason (so far given) bash must be |
| 13 |
> used to parse EAPI is if it's dynamic, say a function, and that won't |
| 14 |
> work so well in a filename either. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
No no no. Bash is the only thing that can parse bash. Ebuilds are bash. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Thus, putting EAPI in the filename pretty much eliminates the |
| 19 |
> possibility of it being a function, and we're back to the original |
| 20 |
> question, instead of a GLEP allowing it in the filename, why not a |
| 21 |
> GLEP specifying the format of that single variable in the file |
| 22 |
> contents well enough to parse without bash? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Because that would be introducing a new, non-extensible, inflexible |
| 25 |
requirement upon the content of ebuilds, and the goal of EAPI is to |
| 26 |
avoid doing exactly that. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives