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 );" |