| 1 |
On 08/26/05 Kristian Benoit wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On the EAPI subject Brian just brought back, I had this idea that we |
| 4 |
> could use the same approch XML took with HTML. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> The ebuild could define which EAPI to use, but instead beiing a |
| 7 |
> version, the EAPI would be an ebuild API definition. The equivalent to |
| 8 |
> the XML's dtd. The ebuild could point to a directory named |
| 9 |
> $PORTDIR/eapi/<eapi-name>/ which would contain a python script named |
| 10 |
> <eapi-name>.py. If not already loaded, that plugable eapi would be |
| 11 |
> loaded before processing the ebuild. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> That way, there is no outdated ebuild format. There is just a default |
| 14 |
> format which is the actual format. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It could also be an XML defining the ebuild's build sequence and other |
| 17 |
> particularities a group of ebuild could have. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As EAPI is closely tied to portage internals (DEPEND handling for |
| 20 |
example) that's not really going to work from within the tree. Otherwise |
| 21 |
we could just distribute portage completely with the tree, no? Don't |
| 22 |
mind having it pluggable inside portage, but as it can potentially |
| 23 |
affect many areas I doubt that's realistic. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Marius |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 31 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives