| 1 |
On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled |
| 3 |
> xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality |
| 4 |
> since such a beast is clearly a seperate format (thus trying to call |
| 5 |
> it an 'ebuild' is dumb, confusing, and counter productive). |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I think this notion should be concluded before we continue debating as |
| 9 |
to how best to implement EAPI declarations. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Is it really so fixed that ".ebuild" will only ever be bash ? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If thats the case, then G55 ( or something similar ) is practically |
| 14 |
guaranteed as soon as we want something non-bash. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Kent |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
| 23 |
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
Archives