| 1 |
On 03/08/2012 08:35 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:30:57 -0800 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico<zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 03/08/2012 01:42 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> * Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 08.03.12 um 08:27 Uhr: |
| 6 |
>>>> Such constructs also cannot be used with any of the other proposed |
| 7 |
>>>> solutions. And in fact, nobody is using such things in practice. |
| 8 |
>>>> _All_ ebuilds in the Portage tree can be successfully parsed with |
| 9 |
>>>> the regexp proposed. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> Ebuilds are bash scripts. I think introducing exceptions or |
| 12 |
>>> constraints here is not straightforward. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Given that ebuilds already have to conform to a vast number of |
| 15 |
>> constraints that ordinary bash scripts do not. I think that it's |
| 16 |
>> perfectly reasonable for ebuilds to have a constrained syntax for |
| 17 |
>> EAPI assignments. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> ...and only EAPI assignments? Not for any other metadata variable? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It's only needed for the EAPI, since that's the only value defined by |
| 22 |
the ebuild that we intend to use to control how the global environment |
| 23 |
is initialized prior to sourcing of the ebuild. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Doesn't that sort of suggest that EAPI shouldn't be a metadata variable? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It's a very special metadata variable. Of course, it could also be |
| 28 |
implemented in many different ways that do not involve bash variable |
| 29 |
assingments. Maybe the differences between the various possible ways |
| 30 |
truly make a difference to some people, but to me it's just |
| 31 |
hair-splitting [1]. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_objections |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
Zac |
Archives