| 1 |
Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 31 August 2005 14:57, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Re: tagging EAPI at the top of a file, infra would probably shoot me for doing such- till a live, fully compatible and *roughly* equivalent parser is available, portage would have to do a bit of grepping, jacking up the regen times. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If in cache EAPI can be gotten from the cache. If not, I don't think it matters where in the file EAPI occurs from the standpoint of getting it's value. The only thing would be that in the future a fast EAPI parser could be made that would just look at EAPI and get its version. I could easilly write you such a parser. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
It is impossible write a parser for an unconstrained and unknown format that may exist in the future. If we put a constraint on the format, in order to parse the EAPI, then we contradict our original goal (to unconstrain the format). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
A better approach IMO would be to store the EAPI in a separate file such as metadata.xml. This would allow *absolute* flexibility in the "ebuild" format. Portage would be able to select an appropriate parser with no need to examine the "ebuild" itself. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Zac |
| 14 |
-- |
| 15 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives