| 1 |
* Zac Medico schrieb am 08.03.12 um 17:30 Uhr: |
| 2 |
> On 03/08/2012 01:42 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: |
| 3 |
> > * Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 08.03.12 um 08:27 Uhr: |
| 4 |
> >> Such constructs also cannot be used with any of the other proposed |
| 5 |
> >> solutions. And in fact, nobody is using such things in practice. |
| 6 |
> >> _All_ ebuilds in the Portage tree can be successfully parsed with the |
| 7 |
> >> regexp proposed. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Ebuilds are bash scripts. I think introducing exceptions or |
| 10 |
> > constraints here is not straightforward. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Given that ebuilds already have to conform to a vast number of |
| 13 |
> constraints that ordinary bash scripts do not. I think that it's |
| 14 |
> perfectly reasonable for ebuilds to have a constrained syntax for EAPI |
| 15 |
> assignments. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
There are constraints in ebuilds, right. But its an *ebuild* in the |
| 18 |
end, not an ordinary shell script. Thats true. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So if EAPI is very special, and I am now convinced it is, then well, |
| 21 |
this might be the most important contraint in an ebuild at all. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If that is true I would vote to keep this as simple as possible: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
* EAPI *must* *be* the first non-Argument / shell code in an ebuild |
| 26 |
* The value of EAPI in the assignment *MUST* *NOT* contain any |
| 27 |
other variables or other shell substitutions. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Period. Done. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
* That would be the least invasive change. |
| 32 |
* Could easily be checked by repoman |
| 33 |
* Is easy parsable by other programs (python code) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-Marc |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317 3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134 |
Archives