1 |
On 03/11/2012 07:03 PM, Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
> Pragmatic reality, the eapi function actually would work fine. As |
3 |
> pointed out elsewhere, bash parses as it goes- which isn't going to |
4 |
> change. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> If someone invokes 'eapi happy-meal' and it's not supported, |
7 |
> the sourcing is stopped immediately, cache gets -happy-meal for the |
8 |
> EAPI, and the pm continues to ignore the ebuild till either the |
9 |
> ebuilds mtime changes (which case it redoes the metadata regen) or the |
10 |
> PM now supports that EAPI, and... you guessed it, redoes the metadata |
11 |
> regen. The cache behaviour is basically the same regardless of the |
12 |
> EAPI mechanism. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Now, this isn't to say everyone views the function as *optimal*. |
15 |
> People can argue about that as much as they'd like. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> The point however is that it *would* work. Anyone claiming |
18 |
> fragility/otherwise needs to put forth actual code examples. |
19 |
|
20 |
Suppose that EAPI 5 requires bash-5. There may be bash-5 syntax in the |
21 |
ebuild prior to your eapi() function call, causing a fatal syntax error. |
22 |
|
23 |
>> Anyway, lets focus on our main goal, which is to decide on a way to |
24 |
>> obtain the EAPI _without_ sourcing the ebuild. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Nitpicking, but the point needs be made; this is *your* requirement. |
27 |
> The requirement is to be able to deploy new globals/bash |
28 |
> requirements/whatever. |
29 |
|
30 |
Well, I think most people would tend to accept my requirement, and that |
31 |
it falls within the realm of common-sense if avoiding unnecessary |
32 |
complexity is one of our goals. |
33 |
-- |
34 |
Thanks, |
35 |
Zac |