Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:51:45
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
2 <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
3 > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:57:04 +1300
4 > Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote:
5 >> I think this notion should be concluded before we continue debating as
6 >> to how best to implement EAPI declarations.
7 >>
8 >> Is it really so fixed that ".ebuild" will only ever be bash ?
9 >
10 > What version of bash are we talking about here? It's not the case that
11 > ebuilds will always be bash 3, which is enough to make GLEP 55 the safe
12 > option.
14 Well, we do always have the option of keeping the EAPI= syntax but
15 making it more strict per the proposals, and then grepping it out
16 rather than sourcing the ebuild. That seems likely to always work
17 with bash. Then if we ever switched to some other format we'd have to
18 reconsider whether we want to tweak this approach further or adopt
19 GLEP 55.
21 If you envision a future where big changes are inevitable over the
22 long term, then just going with GLEP 55 is probably the cleanest
23 solution. If you envision a future where we are likely to never move
24 away from bash, or if we do it is so far off that we're content to let
25 our children deal with it, then other approaches may seem nicer.
27 I guess the question is whether we need to future-proof against a
28 future that may never come. Then again, as we're seeing from systemd
29 a lot of stuff that "always" was done in bash doesn't necessarily have
30 to stay that way.
32 Rich


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>