On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled > xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality > since such a beast is clearly a seperate format (thus trying to call > it an 'ebuild' is dumb, confusing, and counter productive).
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 ? If thats the case, then G55 ( or something similar ) is practically guaranteed as soon as we want something non-bash. -- Kent perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"
