Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:06:26
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash by Rich Freeman
1 >>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:
3 > Well, we do always have the option of keeping the EAPI= syntax but
4 > making it more strict per the proposals, and then grepping it out
5 > rather than sourcing the ebuild. That seems likely to always work
6 > with bash. Then if we ever switched to some other format we'd have
7 > to reconsider whether we want to tweak this approach further or
8 > adopt GLEP 55.
10 As long as we stay with some textual format for ebuilds, the "header
11 comment" approach will always work, if its syntax is general enough.
12 (For example, requiring # as comment introducer would be stupid.)
14 And I don't expect that we will move away from bash within the next
15 two or three years, so there won't be any upgrade problems for systems
16 with old package managers.
18 > If you envision a future where big changes are inevitable over the
19 > long term, then just going with GLEP 55 is probably the cleanest
20 > solution. If you envision a future where we are likely to never move
21 > away from bash, or if we do it is so far off that we're content to
22 > let our children deal with it, then other approaches may seem nicer.
24 > I guess the question is whether we need to future-proof against a
25 > future that may never come. Then again, as we're seeing from systemd
26 > a lot of stuff that "always" was done in bash doesn't necessarily
27 > have to stay that way.
29 See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is
30 still not needed.
32 Ulrich


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>