| 1 |
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:30:57 -0800 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 03/08/2012 01:42 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: |
| 4 |
> > * Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 08.03.12 um 08:27 Uhr: |
| 5 |
> >> Such constructs also cannot be used with any of the other proposed |
| 6 |
> >> solutions. And in fact, nobody is using such things in practice. |
| 7 |
> >> _All_ ebuilds in the Portage tree can be successfully parsed with |
| 8 |
> >> the regexp proposed. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Ebuilds are bash scripts. I think introducing exceptions or |
| 11 |
> > constraints here is not straightforward. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Given that ebuilds already have to conform to a vast number of |
| 14 |
> constraints that ordinary bash scripts do not. I think that it's |
| 15 |
> perfectly reasonable for ebuilds to have a constrained syntax for |
| 16 |
> EAPI assignments. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
...and only EAPI assignments? Not for any other metadata variable? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Doesn't that sort of suggest that EAPI shouldn't be a metadata variable? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives