Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:38:10
Message-Id: 4F58FC55.7070005@orlitzky.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds by Ciaran McCreesh
On 03/08/2012 12:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:48:51 -0500 > Michael Orlitzky<michael@××××××××.com> wrote: >> On 03/08/2012 12:28 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> And something will need to provide that /usr/bin/eapi4 thing. And >>> that introduces new problems: >> >> I'm just parroting someone else's suggestion; I don't really know >> enough about the details to answer these properly. Not that that will >> stop me. > > It probably should. Although in the early days the model for ebuilds > was that they were scripts that were "executed", nowadays there's so > much support required that it's better to think of ebuilds as being > data. If you did have a /usr/bin/eapi5, it would have to be implemented > as something that invoked the package manager, not as a direct > interpreter.
Fair enough, but aren't you arguing the opposite point with Zac? If ebuilds are data, fine, we write EAPI=4 somewhere and be done with it. Anything not having that format is out-of-spec. If they're code, they're code, and we need to execute them somehow. And the reason for the proposal in the first place was that the way we do it now ain't so great, eh?

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>