| 1 |
On 2007/12/18, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@××××.dk> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tuesday 18 December 2007 01:36:51 Thomas de Grenier de Latour |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Why can't it be in the file but readable without sourcing? For |
| 6 |
> > instance, it could be mandatory that EAPI=X, if present, must be |
| 7 |
> > the first non-blank and non-comment line of the ebuild (and it |
| 8 |
> > would then be checked after sourcing, if the ebuild is sourced, to |
| 9 |
> > bug on cases where it's redefined or unset afterwards). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> This would also mean we had to wait for ages before taking advantage |
| 12 |
> of it because old versions of portage still would try to source the |
| 13 |
> ebuild when the EAPI is unknown. The nice thing about .ebuild-EAPI is |
| 14 |
> that old versions of Portage will ignore it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
There's no need to introduce a potential infinity of new files |
| 17 |
extensions for that. A single one is enough: just call files which |
| 18 |
use the rule i've proposed "foo.gbuild" instead of "foo.ebuild", and |
| 19 |
you're done. Imo, it would keep the tree more pleasant looking, and |
| 20 |
limit complexity of the required changes on the existing scripts and |
| 21 |
tools which are not already linked to libpaludis or alike. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
TGL. |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives