| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:17:19 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> It just seems like it isn't the best solution. You can get the same |
| 5 |
>> effect by just sticking something in a comment line a few lines into |
| 6 |
>> the ebuild in a fixed position. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> No you can't. It doesn't work with existing package managers, |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Agreed. This would require some delay in implementation and would |
| 11 |
require users to have some minimal package manager version to handle |
| 12 |
major changes in a repository. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> and it |
| 15 |
> doesn't let you change name or version rules. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Neither does putting the EAPI in the filename as far as I can tell. It |
| 19 |
isn't like you want to have ebuild filenames like: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
foo-1.1.ebuild-\{EAPI\=1\ \;\ if\ \[\[\ \$PV\ =\ 2.6\ \]\]\ \;\ then\ |
| 22 |
EAPI\=2\ \;\ fi\} |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Putting the EAPI in the filename forces it to be a rigid constant for |
| 25 |
the purposes of determining how to parse the file. Putting the EAPI in |
| 26 |
a comment line does the same. Both allow for dynamic manipulation of |
| 27 |
the variable at a later stage of parsing, but this is after the package |
| 28 |
manager has committed to sourcing the file in some particular manner. |
| 29 |
If anything you get more flexibility putting it inside the file since at |
| 30 |
least you can make it very long without clogging up command lines. |
Archives