On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:05:13PM +0000, Steve Long wrote:
> Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
>
> > On 2007/12/18, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:10:46 -0700
> >> Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > I probably missed some of the stuff leading up to this GLEP, but
> >> > what is the problem with having the EAPI in the file and
> >> > determining it by looking at the file contents?
> >>
> >> Motivation, second bullet point:
> >>
> >> | Possibility to extend the behaviour of inherit and add new global
> >> | scope functions (as a result of not sourcing ebuilds with
> >> | unsupported EAPI).
> >
> > 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).
> >
> There's _no_ need to source, nor constrain like that, for a simple one-line
> variable, eg:
> $ sed -nr '/^[[:space:]]*DESCRIPTION="([^"]*)".*/ { s//\1/p;q; }' \
> app-portage/autounmask/autounmask-0.21.ebuild
> autounmask - Unmasking packages the easy way
>
> eapi=$(sed -nr '/^[[:space:]]*EAPI="([^"]*)".*/ { s//\1/p;q; }' foo.ebuild)
> [[ $eapi ]] && checkAPI "$eapi"
> ..would do it in bash (empty if unset in ebuild) assuming the conventional
> EAPI="xx" format is used. Other languages can call system() easily enough.
This is just *brillant*. Lets see how useful your solution is:
--- 8< ---
# EAPI has to be set differently based upon tests on PV
if [[ -z ${PV/?.?/} ]] ; then
EAPI="bar-1"
elif [[ -z ${PV/?.?.?/} ]] ; then
EAPI="0"
else
EAPI="1"
fi
--- 8< ---
So please, no hacks.
- ferdy
--
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4
pgpuCiBgvg9Lx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
