Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI specification in ebuilds
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:58:29
Message-Id: 20356.26282.371543.987108@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI specification in ebuilds by Brian Harring
1 >>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
2
3 > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:43:55AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
4 >> We could make the ([A-Za-z0-9+_.-]*) group "optional", but treat it
5 >> as an error if the group is missing. That way, the package manager
6 >> can detect invalid assignments earlier, and can skip sourcing the
7 >> ebuild in this case.
8
9 Currently there isn't any ebuild in the tree that assigns an empty
10 EAPI, so I think we can neglect any performance issues.
11
12 > Or disallow EAPI= .
13
14 Probably it's simpler to keep the regexp as it is, but error out if
15 the second group is empty.
16
17 > There isn't any reason to reset it to an unknown EAPI manually like
18 > that; if code does that, the code is wrong imo, thus skip trying to
19 > parse that.
20
21 I see no valid usage case why an ebuild should assign the empty string
22 to the EAPI variable. So we could add a sentence like
23 "It is an error for an ebuild to assign an empty EAPI."
24 to the first paragraph of this subsection:
25 <http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/4/pms.html#x1-710008.3.1>
26
27 Ulrich

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] EAPI specification in ebuilds Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>