1 |
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:14:13 -0500 |
2 |
Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 03/07/2012 03:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > *** Proposal 2: "EAPI in header comment" *** |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > A different approach would be to specify the EAPI in a specially |
9 |
> > formatted comment in the ebuild's header. No syntax has been |
10 |
> > suggested yet, but I believe that the following would work as a |
11 |
> > specification: |
12 |
> > - The EAPI must be declared in a special comment in the first line |
13 |
> > of the ebuild's header, as follows: |
14 |
> > - The first line of the ebuild must contain the word "ebuild", |
15 |
> > followed by whitespace, followed by the EAPI, followed by |
16 |
> > end-of-line or whitespace. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Someone suggested using a standard shebang the last time this came |
20 |
> up, and if I remember correctly it was one of the least-disagreeable |
21 |
> solutions proposed. We could of course define our own custom format, |
22 |
> but I think something like, |
23 |
> |
24 |
> #!/usr/bin/eapi5 |
25 |
> |
26 |
> would be perfect if we could hand off the interpretation of the |
27 |
> ebuild to that program. That solves the problem with new bash |
28 |
> features, too, since you could point that command at a specific |
29 |
> version. |
30 |
|
31 |
And what would /usr/bin/eapi5 do? Are you suggesting misusing shebang |
32 |
or making ebuilds PM-centric? |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Best regards, |
36 |
Michał Górny |