| 1 |
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> There's also libbash now: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Looks like complete overkill to me, considering the simple task at |
| 7 |
> hand. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Plus, wasn't the whole point that we can't guarantee that the bash |
| 11 |
installed on a user's system can parse the ebuild until we've checked |
| 12 |
the EAPI? If we use libbash doesn't that just keep the same |
| 13 |
constraint but on a different package? Is the current stable libbash |
| 14 |
guaranteed to be able to parse a bash v12 script? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If you just parse the file with a defined set of rules without regard |
| 17 |
to how bash might parse the file, then you can determine the EAPI and |
| 18 |
then decide how to source it. For all we know EAPI G will turn |
| 19 |
ebuilds into python scripts so trying to read the thing with bash or |
| 20 |
libbash will be doomed to failure. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Rich |
Archives