| 1 |
On 2007/12/18, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:10:46 -0700 |
| 4 |
> Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I probably missed some of the stuff leading up to this GLEP, but |
| 6 |
> > what is the problem with having the EAPI in the file and |
| 7 |
> > determining it by looking at the file contents? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Motivation, second bullet point: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> | Possibility to extend the behaviour of inherit and add new global |
| 12 |
> | scope functions (as a result of not sourcing ebuilds with |
| 13 |
> | unsupported EAPI). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Why can't it be in the file but readable without sourcing? For instance, |
| 16 |
it could be mandatory that EAPI=X, if present, must be the first |
| 17 |
non-blank and non-comment line of the ebuild (and it would then be |
| 18 |
checked after sourcing, if the ebuild is sourced, to bug on cases where |
| 19 |
it's redefined or unset afterwards). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
TGL. |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives