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