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 |