| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:36:51 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Why can't it be in the file but readable without sourcing? For |
| 5 |
>> instance, it could be mandatory that EAPI=X, if present, must be the |
| 6 |
>> first non-blank and non-comment line of the ebuild (and it would then |
| 7 |
>> be checked after sourcing, if the ebuild is sourced, to bug on cases |
| 8 |
>> where it's redefined or unset afterwards). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> That's another option. It's considered less ideal because it's a nasty |
| 11 |
> hack -- it imposes restrictions beyond "it's bash" upon the format of |
| 12 |
> ebuilds. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This option is worth thinking about more - there may be satisfactory |
| 15 |
ways to mediate the issues. It is certainly more elegant, and it avoids |
| 16 |
another nasty gotcha: that of the pre-source and post-source EAPI |
| 17 |
disagreeing. Generally, I find that having the same info in two places |
| 18 |
should be avoided whenever possible. I know the GLEP contains ways of |
| 19 |
determining the "real" EAPI in this case (post-source), but I can |
| 20 |
imagine most humans will simply get used to looking at the filename and |
| 21 |
potentially miss the fact that it doesn't match, and programs that look |
| 22 |
only pre-source can be mislead. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-Joe |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives