1 |
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:12:28PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote |
2 |
|
3 |
> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to |
4 |
> use GLEP 55. |
5 |
|
6 |
A filename should not be (ab)used as a database. The main argument for |
7 |
GLEP 55 is that it would make ebuild-processing generic. I.e. making |
8 |
ebuild info available to whatever future ebuild processor replacement |
9 |
for bash was used. A couple of comments... |
10 |
|
11 |
1) Let's talk generic. Right now, we're talking about EAPI. In future, |
12 |
what other (meta)data and characteristics will we need to know? What |
13 |
else will be tacked onto the filename? EAPI, and any other critical |
14 |
(meta)data should be declared early on in the ebuild. That's what the |
15 |
ebuild is for. |
16 |
|
17 |
2) Any potential ebuild processor that's incapable of looking for regex |
18 |
"^EAPI=" in a textfile, amd parsing the numbers that follow, has no |
19 |
business being used to process ebuilds. |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |