Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:28:43
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds by Alec Warner
1 On 03/08/2012 12:13 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
2 > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
3 >> Such constructs also cannot be used with any of the other proposed
4 >> solutions. And in fact, nobody is using such things in practice.
5 >> _All_ ebuilds in the Portage tree can be successfully parsed with the
6 >> regexp proposed.
7 >
8 > I'm not saying they are valid EAPI syntax; but they are all valid
9 > bash. I tend to assume all authors are as...ignorant as myself. Lets
10 > not give them the rope to hang themselves.
12 Something like DEPEND="foo bar" is also valid bash, and yet we don't
13 allow that either because "foo bar" does not contain valid dependency
14 atoms. Also, keep in mind that we're not allowing people to "hang
15 themselves" with invalid EAPI assignments. We'll simply give them a
16 reasonable error message so that they can quickly and easily correct
17 their mistake.
18 --
19 Thanks,
20 Zac


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds David Leverton <levertond@××××××××××.com>