| 1 |
On 03/08/2012 08:29 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:21:53 -0800 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico<zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Maybe that sort of distinction truly makes a difference to some |
| 5 |
>> people, but to me it just seems like hair-splitting [1]. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> So just to get this straight, you think that the following two |
| 8 |
> restrictions are effectively equivalent? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> * The variable DEPEND's value must be set according to the following |
| 11 |
> rules: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> * The EAPI variable assignment must not use full bash syntax. Instead, |
| 14 |
> it must be assigned according to the following rules: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yeah, I think they're reasonably/roughly equivalent for how we use them |
| 17 |
in the current context. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> And you believe that having exactly one place inside ebuild text where |
| 20 |
> there are different whitespace, quoting and indenting rules for |
| 21 |
> something that otherwise looks exactly like any other metadata variable |
| 22 |
> isn't going to cause problems? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Yes, with the stipulation that we implement a sanity check / feedback |
| 25 |
mechanism which guarantees that the probed EAPI is identical with the |
| 26 |
result obtained from bash [1]. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402167#c18 |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Thanks, |
| 31 |
Zac |
Archives