Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: michael@××××××××.com
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:02:03
Message-Id: 20120308130310.69c3c714@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds by Michael Orlitzky
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:14:13 -0500
Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote:

> On 03/07/2012 03:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > *** Proposal 2: "EAPI in header comment" *** > > > > A different approach would be to specify the EAPI in a specially > > formatted comment in the ebuild's header. No syntax has been > > suggested yet, but I believe that the following would work as a > > specification: > > - The EAPI must be declared in a special comment in the first line > > of the ebuild's header, as follows: > > - The first line of the ebuild must contain the word "ebuild", > > followed by whitespace, followed by the EAPI, followed by > > end-of-line or whitespace. > > > > Someone suggested using a standard shebang the last time this came > up, and if I remember correctly it was one of the least-disagreeable > solutions proposed. We could of course define our own custom format, > but I think something like, > > #!/usr/bin/eapi5 > > would be perfect if we could hand off the interpretation of the > ebuild to that program. That solves the problem with new bash > features, too, since you could point that command at a specific > version.
And what would /usr/bin/eapi5 do? Are you suggesting misusing shebang or making ebuilds PM-centric? -- Best regards, Michał Górny


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com>