Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

[Andrew Gaffney]

Brian Harring wrote:
>
> 4) eapi as a function; instead of "EAPI=1", do "eapi 1", required as
>  the first statement (simplest way).
>  pros:
>   - global scope changes can occur (inherit mechanism changes
>     included).
>   - expanding on the first, auto inherits (pkg level) are possible-
>     effectively when eapi gets invoked the manager is in control and
>     can do whatever is desired setting up the env wise.
>   - bash version requirements can be leveled (bash parses as it goes,
>     meaning that essentially it won't parse what follows 'eapi 2' till
>     that command statement finishes)
>   - fits w/ the existing semantics nicely enough.
>  cons:
>   - mangling the version rules for pkgs still isn't possible; no -scm.
>     Arguable if -scm is even desired, but being explicit about it not
>     covering this.
>   - transition is slightly icky; basically one of the following is
>     required-
>    a) for EAPI>=2, do 'eapi 3 || die "upgrade your manager"'.  Reason
>     for this is that current managers obviously lack an eapi function,
>     to make managers available *now* blow up the || die is required.
>     This solution can be deployed now, no transition required although
>     at some point stating "eapi is required retroactively for all
>     eapis" would be wise to eliminate the need for the || die (cut
>     support basically for old managers)
>    b) bashrc trickery, defines an eapi if it's unset.  Said eapi
>     function exports EAPI=$1, optionally triggering a die if the eapi
>     isn't 0,1,2 (since any later eapi would require a manager upgrade
>     which would also have the eapi function).
>
> Personally, if g54 is ixnayed #4 I tend to think is the best option
> out there- if g54 is forced in, g55 (or at least something that
> adjusts the extension to make it invisible to current managers) is
> required.
>
> Commentary?  Tend to think #4 is the most aesthetically pleasing to
> folk, but who knows...
> ~harring

I really like this idea, but nobody else seems to have commented on it.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney                                 http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer            Catalyst/Genkernel + Release Engineering Lead