1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Someone suggested using a standard shebang the last time this came |
4 |
> up, and if I remember correctly it was one of the least-disagreeable |
5 |
> solutions proposed. We could of course define our own custom format, |
6 |
> but I think something like, |
7 |
|
8 |
> #!/usr/bin/eapi5 |
9 |
|
10 |
> would be perfect if we could hand off the interpretation of the |
11 |
> ebuild to that program. That solves the problem with new bash |
12 |
> features, too, since you could point that command at a specific |
13 |
> version. |
14 |
|
15 |
Please note that I've formulated the specification in a way that |
16 |
accounts for this: |
17 |
|
18 |
>> - The first line of the ebuild must contain the word "ebuild", |
19 |
>> followed by whitespace, followed by the EAPI, followed by |
20 |
>> end-of-line or whitespace. |
21 |
|
22 |
This would also match the line "#!/usr/bin/ebuild 5" (if the magic |
23 |
word should be "ebuild" or "eapi" can be discussed of course). |
24 |
So even if we would introduce the shebang only in a later EAPI, |
25 |
previous portage versions would still recognise the new header. |
26 |
|
27 |
Ulrich |