Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:36:51 +0100
> Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why can't it be in the file but readable without sourcing? For
>> instance, it could be mandatory that EAPI=X, if present, must be the
>> first non-blank and non-comment line of the ebuild (and it would then
>> be checked after sourcing, if the ebuild is sourced, to bug on cases
>> where it's redefined or unset afterwards).
>
> That's another option. It's considered less ideal because it's a nasty
> hack -- it imposes restrictions beyond "it's bash" upon the format of
> ebuilds.
This option is worth thinking about more - there may be satisfactory
ways to mediate the issues. It is certainly more elegant, and it avoids
another nasty gotcha: that of the pre-source and post-source EAPI
disagreeing. Generally, I find that having the same info in two places
should be avoided whenever possible. I know the GLEP contains ways of
determining the "real" EAPI in this case (post-source), but I can
imagine most humans will simply get used to looking at the filename and
potentially miss the fact that it doesn't match, and programs that look
only pre-source can be mislead.
-Joe
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
