On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Because a) a future EAPI might want to change EAPI into a function > > rather than a variable, b) there are a zillion ways of setting a > > variable in bash and people already use all of them and c) > > introducing new weird format requirements is silly. > > So you're proposing putting the function into the filename?
No, I'm saying that the data goes into the filename. > As he stated, the only credible reason (so far given) bash must be > used to parse EAPI is if it's dynamic, say a function, and that won't > work so well in a filename either. No no no. Bash is the only thing that can parse bash. Ebuilds are bash. > Thus, putting EAPI in the filename pretty much eliminates the > possibility of it being a function, and we're back to the original > question, instead of a GLEP allowing it in the filename, why not a > GLEP specifying the format of that single variable in the file > contents well enough to parse without bash? Because that would be introducing a new, non-extensible, inflexible requirement upon the content of ebuilds, and the goal of EAPI is to avoid doing exactly that. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
