| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Well, we do always have the option of keeping the EAPI= syntax but |
| 4 |
> making it more strict per the proposals, and then grepping it out |
| 5 |
> rather than sourcing the ebuild. That seems likely to always work |
| 6 |
> with bash. Then if we ever switched to some other format we'd have |
| 7 |
> to reconsider whether we want to tweak this approach further or |
| 8 |
> adopt GLEP 55. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
As long as we stay with some textual format for ebuilds, the "header |
| 11 |
comment" approach will always work, if its syntax is general enough. |
| 12 |
(For example, requiring # as comment introducer would be stupid.) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
And I don't expect that we will move away from bash within the next |
| 15 |
two or three years, so there won't be any upgrade problems for systems |
| 16 |
with old package managers. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> If you envision a future where big changes are inevitable over the |
| 19 |
> long term, then just going with GLEP 55 is probably the cleanest |
| 20 |
> solution. If you envision a future where we are likely to never move |
| 21 |
> away from bash, or if we do it is so far off that we're content to |
| 22 |
> let our children deal with it, then other approaches may seem nicer. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I guess the question is whether we need to future-proof against a |
| 25 |
> future that may never come. Then again, as we're seeing from systemd |
| 26 |
> a lot of stuff that "always" was done in bash doesn't necessarily |
| 27 |
> have to stay that way. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is |
| 30 |
still not needed. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Ulrich |
Archives