On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:57:04 +1300 > Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think this notion should be concluded before we continue debating as >> to how best to implement EAPI declarations. >> >> Is it really so fixed that ".ebuild" will only ever be bash ? > > What version of bash are we talking about here? It's not the case that > ebuilds will always be bash 3, which is enough to make GLEP 55 the safe > option.
Well, we do always have the option of keeping the EAPI= syntax but making it more strict per the proposals, and then grepping it out rather than sourcing the ebuild. That seems likely to always work with bash. Then if we ever switched to some other format we'd have to reconsider whether we want to tweak this approach further or adopt GLEP 55. If you envision a future where big changes are inevitable over the long term, then just going with GLEP 55 is probably the cleanest solution. If you envision a future where we are likely to never move away from bash, or if we do it is so far off that we're content to let our children deal with it, then other approaches may seem nicer. I guess the question is whether we need to future-proof against a future that may never come. Then again, as we're seeing from systemd a lot of stuff that "always" was done in bash doesn't necessarily have to stay that way. Rich
