| 1 |
On 03/12/2012 10:30 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> It would be very fragile without the sanity check / feedback mechanism |
| 4 |
>> that's already been suggested. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Another obvious check is to have repoman run a grep with the regexp |
| 7 |
> and give an error if there is not exactly one match. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
If we want to handle every possible screwup, including stray EAPI |
| 10 |
assignments inside inherited eclasses, we still need to compare the |
| 11 |
probed value to the value that's obtained from bash. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I guess you're hinting at using a non-bash ebuild format? Even if in |
| 14 |
that case, the the package manager should simply use whatever |
| 15 |
interpreter is appropriate for the probed EAPI. So, if EAPI 7 is a |
| 16 |
posix-shell format, and the probed EAPI is 7, then the package manager |
| 17 |
should source the ebuild with it's posix-shell instead of bash. If the |
| 18 |
probed EAPI is not a supported EAPI, then it should skip the sourcing |
| 19 |
entirely, and report the ebuild as having an unsupported EAPI. |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Thanks, |
| 22 |
Zac |
Archives