On 2007/12/18, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 18 December 2007 01:36:51 Thomas de Grenier de Latour > 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). > > This would also mean we had to wait for ages before taking advantage > of it because old versions of portage still would try to source the > ebuild when the EAPI is unknown. The nice thing about .ebuild-EAPI is > that old versions of Portage will ignore it.
There's no need to introduce a potential infinity of new files extensions for that. A single one is enough: just call files which use the rule i've proposed "foo.gbuild" instead of "foo.ebuild", and you're done. Imo, it would keep the tree more pleasant looking, and limit complexity of the required changes on the existing scripts and tools which are not already linked to libpaludis or alike. -- TGL. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
