On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:14:13 -0500 Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 03:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > *** Proposal 2: "EAPI in header comment" *** > > > > A different approach would be to specify the EAPI in a specially > > formatted comment in the ebuild's header. No syntax has been > > suggested yet, but I believe that the following would work as a > > specification: > > - The EAPI must be declared in a special comment in the first line > > of the ebuild's header, as follows: > > - The first line of the ebuild must contain the word "ebuild", > > followed by whitespace, followed by the EAPI, followed by > > end-of-line or whitespace. > > > > Someone suggested using a standard shebang the last time this came > up, and if I remember correctly it was one of the least-disagreeable > solutions proposed. We could of course define our own custom format, > but I think something like, > > #!/usr/bin/eapi5 > > would be perfect if we could hand off the interpretation of the > ebuild to that program. That solves the problem with new bash > features, too, since you could point that command at a specific > version. And what would /usr/bin/eapi5 do? Are you suggesting misusing shebang or making ebuilds PM-centric? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
