Richard Freeman wrote:
> Some object to parsing out the EAPI without sourcing the ebuild (only
> bash can source bash). I disagree with this argument - every time you
> run a shell script it is sourced by something other than bash - the
> kernel has to figure out what script interpreter to use by parsing the
> first line. There is no reason we can't use a magic number in the same
> way with the EAPI. That isn't reason enough on its own to put the EAPI
> in the filename, but it is a start.
+1
It was mentioned that "comments are to be ignored", but you point out a
perfect and very fundamental example of where this is not true:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
Putting another line close to this one with:
#EAPI=42
or
#!EAPI=42
if you like (conforms more to the shell script specifier), is not too
muchh of a stretch.
> Most software packages store version information internal to a file
> format. I'm actually not aware of many that put it in the filename.
Only a few, mainly Windows, I believe. Like .WSn (as pointed out on the
Filename_extension wikipedia page). But oddballs like this suggest to
me that a hack had to be done because the version could not be gleaned
in a more subtle way from the file itself (e.g. MS Word does this
transparently - all are ".doc").
-Joe
--
[email protected] mailing list
