Tiziano Müller wrote:
>> What is proposed in glep-55 seems to aim to solve both issues at the 
>> same time (it isn't stated) by switching file extension every time the 
>> eapi is changed. This is slightly against the principle of the least 
>> surprise and apparently is disliked by enough people to lead the 
>> situation to be discussed in the council.
>>
> 
> Instead of switching file extension every time the eapi is changed you
> could also increment it only when a new EAPI breaks sourcing the ebuild
> compared to the requirements of the prior EAPI.
> (This way you'd in fact split EAPI into a major- and a minor-version.)

Makes you getting to have to do the two stage source again AND you get 
another non obvious condition "Should I bump the eapi internally or the 
filename?"

The main point again what is proposed in glep-55 is it that isn't 
invasive and non-transparent to users and developers.

As stated in the analysis, the user side is already covered by the fact 
users use the cache, the developer side would require a two stage 
sourcing when committing to remain transparent.

What we need to balance is if the invasive proposal is simpler than 
having a two stage sourcing done.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero