On 08/26/05 Kristian Benoit wrote: > On the EAPI subject Brian just brought back, I had this idea that we > could use the same approch XML took with HTML. > > The ebuild could define which EAPI to use, but instead beiing a > version, the EAPI would be an ebuild API definition. The equivalent to > the XML's dtd. The ebuild could point to a directory named > $PORTDIR/eapi/<eapi-name>/ which would contain a python script named > <eapi-name>.py. If not already loaded, that plugable eapi would be > loaded before processing the ebuild. > > That way, there is no outdated ebuild format. There is just a default > format which is the actual format. > > It could also be an XML defining the ebuild's build sequence and other > particularities a group of ebuild could have.
As EAPI is closely tied to portage internals (DEPEND handling for example) that's not really going to work from within the tree. Otherwise we could just distribute portage completely with the tree, no? Don't mind having it pluggable inside portage, but as it can potentially affect many areas I doubt that's realistic. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. -- [email protected] mailing list
