Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...>
Subject: Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 18:48:20 +0000
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:37:09 -0500
Michael Orlitzky <michael@...> wrote:
> > 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.

The problem is that right now there's no way to determine the format of
the data until you already know the format of the data. We hack around
this by not allowing "drastic" format changes, where "drastic" includes
"using things in newer versions of bash" and "not adding new global
scope commands".

The question under discussion is whether we a) keep "what format the
data is in" as being part of the data, but impose some strange and
arbitrary conditions on it, b) make a one-time change to have some kind
of 'header' inside the file describing its format that isn't really part
of the data itself, or c) admit that GLEP 55 already solved the problem
and we might as well just fix the issue properly once and for all, even
if GLEP 55's author is considered by some to be one of Satan's little
minions.

> If they're code, they're code, and we need to execute them somehow.

The notion of "execute them somehow" that's used doesn't fit in with
the #! interpreter model. You aren't executing ebuilds via an
interpreter. You're performing an action that involves using the data
and code in an ebuild multiple times and in multiple different ways,
and that may also involve doing the same to an installed package that
is being replaced.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Attachment:
signature.asc (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
-- Steven J Long
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
-- Michael Orlitzky
References:
RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
-- Ulrich Mueller
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
-- Michael Orlitzky
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
-- Michał Górny
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
-- Michael Orlitzky
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
-- Michał Górny
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
-- Michael Orlitzky
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
-- Michael Orlitzky
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
Next by thread:
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
Previous by date:
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
Next by date:
Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.