On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:14:13 -0500
Michael Orlitzky <michael@...> wrote:

> On 03/07/2012 03:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> > *** Proposal 2: "EAPI in header comment" ***
> >
> > A different approach would be to specify the EAPI in a specially
> > formatted comment in the ebuild's header. No syntax has been
> > suggested yet, but I believe that the following would work as a
> > specification:
> > - The EAPI must be declared in a special comment in the first line
> > of the ebuild's header, as follows:
> > - The first line of the ebuild must contain the word "ebuild",
> >    followed by whitespace, followed by the EAPI, followed by
> >    end-of-line or whitespace.
> >
> 
> Someone suggested using a standard shebang the last time this came
> up, and if I remember correctly it was one of the least-disagreeable 
> solutions proposed. We could of course define our own custom format,
> but I think something like,
> 
>    #!/usr/bin/eapi5
> 
> would be perfect if we could hand off the interpretation of the
> ebuild to that program. That solves the problem with new bash
> features, too, since you could point that command at a specific
> version.

And what would /usr/bin/eapi5 do? Are you suggesting misusing shebang
or making ebuilds PM-centric?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny