On 03/08/2012 12:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:48:51 -0500
> Michael Orlitzky<michael@...>  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?