On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:57:04 +1300
Kent Fredric <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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 ?
What version of bash are we talking about here? It's not the case that
ebuilds will always be bash 3, which is enough to make GLEP 55 the safe