| 1 |
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:19:56 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:13:16 +0100 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Which begs the question: is it really worth allowing it? |
| 7 |
> > If we only allow constant assignments (which is an implicit |
| 8 |
> > restriction in the file extension version) then this can be parsed |
| 9 |
> > easily with grep/tr/awk/etc and can be the magic eapi guessing. Of |
| 10 |
> > course the tree has to be checked before implementing this and we'll |
| 11 |
> > have to wait a good amount of time before breaking the current eapi |
| 12 |
> > bash-parsing but I'm not aware of any eapi proposal that would break |
| 13 |
> > the current behavior and would be usable in the main tree within a |
| 14 |
> > reasonable amount of time such that we can't ignore backward |
| 15 |
> > compatibility. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> ...and then we have to do the whole thing again every time something |
| 18 |
> new crops up. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Please give an example because I fail to see how. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> EAPI was supposed to solve this, and profile eapi and |
| 23 |
> GLEP 55 finish the job. Repeatedly going back and saying "oh, we have |
| 24 |
> to wait another year or more again" is unacceptable. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Had we found a compromise at the beginning of glep55, that extra year |
| 27 |
would be over by now... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Alexis. |
Archives