>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Rich Freeman wrote: > 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.
As long as we stay with some textual format for ebuilds, the "header comment" approach will always work, if its syntax is general enough. (For example, requiring # as comment introducer would be stupid.) And I don't expect that we will move away from bash within the next two or three years, so there won't be any upgrade problems for systems with old package managers. > 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. See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is still not needed. Ulrich
