On 03/08/2012 12:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:48:51 -0500
Michael Orlitzky<mich...@orlitzky.com> wrote:
On 03/08/2012 12:28 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
And something will need to provide that /usr/bin/eapi4 thing. And
that introduces new problems:
I'm just parroting someone else's suggestion; I don't really know
enough about the details to answer these properly. Not that that will
stop me.
It probably should. Although in the early days the model for ebuilds
was that they were scripts that were "executed", nowadays there's so
much support required that it's better to think of ebuilds as being
data. If you did have a /usr/bin/eapi5, it would have to be implemented
as something that invoked the package manager, not as a direct
interpreter.
Fair enough, but aren't you arguing the opposite point with Zac? If
ebuilds are data, fine, we write EAPI=4 somewhere and be done with it.
Anything not having that format is out-of-spec.
If they're code, they're code, and we need to execute them somehow. And
the reason for the proposal in the first place was that the way we do it
now ain't so great, eh?
