| 1 |
Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> Some object to parsing out the EAPI without sourcing the ebuild (only |
| 3 |
> bash can source bash). I disagree with this argument - every time you |
| 4 |
> run a shell script it is sourced by something other than bash - the |
| 5 |
> kernel has to figure out what script interpreter to use by parsing the |
| 6 |
> first line. There is no reason we can't use a magic number in the same |
| 7 |
> way with the EAPI. That isn't reason enough on its own to put the EAPI |
| 8 |
> in the filename, but it is a start. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
+1 |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It was mentioned that "comments are to be ignored", but you point out a |
| 13 |
perfect and very fundamental example of where this is not true: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
#!/usr/bin/env bash |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Putting another line close to this one with: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
#EAPI=42 |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
or |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
#!EAPI=42 |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
if you like (conforms more to the shell script specifier), is not too |
| 26 |
muchh of a stretch. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Most software packages store version information internal to a file |
| 29 |
> format. I'm actually not aware of many that put it in the filename. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Only a few, mainly Windows, I believe. Like .WSn (as pointed out on the |
| 32 |
Filename_extension wikipedia page). But oddballs like this suggest to |
| 33 |
me that a hack had to be done because the version could not be gleaned |
| 34 |
in a more subtle way from the file itself (e.g. MS Word does this |
| 35 |
transparently - all are ".doc"). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-Joe |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives