1 |
Filename extension is a "suffix to the name of a computer file, designed |
2 |
to show its format" (-- wikipedia). General format of ebuilds is bash. |
3 |
Putting version of bash scripts inside filename extension just breaks |
4 |
common convention people got accustomed to. |
5 |
|
6 |
В Чтв, 19/02/2009 в 12:51 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: |
7 |
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:06:01 +0300 |
8 |
> Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> wrote: |
9 |
> > If you and think that EAPI is meta-information then it should not be |
10 |
> > inside file name and then it's possible to parse ebuild and get EAPI |
11 |
> > from some defined-format line. Performance penalties can be mitigated |
12 |
> > by some new caching (you know better than me that it's good idea to |
13 |
> > re-implement caching in any case). |
14 |
> |
15 |
> The only thing that can parse ebuilds is bash, and it can only do that |
16 |
> once it already knows the EAPI. |
17 |
|
18 |
You don't need to parse full bash script. You just need to get |
19 |
|
20 |
EAPI="something" |
21 |
|
22 |
string from there. If you wish to implement new ebuild format, e.g. |
23 |
ebuilds in xml, in such a case you'll change extension on .xebuild or |
24 |
whatever suits better. |
25 |
|
26 |
> Another cache won't solve anything since there's no way to generate |
27 |
> that cache to begin with -- and a second level of cache would slow |
28 |
> things down, not speed them up. |
29 |
|
30 |
I told about caching just to avoid "it's slow to get EAPI from ebuild" |
31 |
argument. |
32 |
|
33 |
> Because all the alternatives are worse, and none of the objections to |
34 |
> the extension have been technical in nature. They've all been "we don't |
35 |
> want you to apply anti-mould paint to the rotting bikeshed because it's |
36 |
> only available in brown". |
37 |
|
38 |
If by technical objection you mean 'explanation why technically it's |
39 |
impossible or bad to implement .eapi extensions' I agree with you. It is |
40 |
possible to code it and it will work. But ... again. Statement is: |
41 |
|
42 |
Filename extension is a "suffix to the name of a computer file, designed |
43 |
to show its format". General format of ebuilds is bash. Putting version |
44 |
of bash scripts inside filename extension just breaks common convention |
45 |
people got accustomed to. Although this is not a technical objection it |
46 |
is not unimportant. Even color is important if your are talking about |
47 |
things people will see/use on daily basis. I doubt you'll paint your |
48 |
room in violet only because you can easy get this paint right now. |
49 |
|
50 |
That said, technically there are other solutions for this problem, e.g. |
51 |
1) it is possible to read one line of defined format from any file 2) it |
52 |
is possible to make eapi inside ebuild name (foo-1.0-eapi2.ebuild), but |
53 |
not as extension. Any solution, even breaking compatibility solution, we |
54 |
could already start using if we had forgotten about GLEP 55 long time |
55 |
ago... |
56 |
|
57 |
Putting GLEP 55 infinite number of times on council agenda makes me feel |
58 |
that this issue has something common with perpetuum mobile. At least I'd |
59 |
like similar resolution from our council as the Royal Academy of |
60 |
Sciences in Paris did in 1775. It's hard to tell anything new about GLEP |
61 |
55 but people still don't like it, so, council, please, ban it forever |
62 |
and let something else arise. |
63 |
|
64 |
-- |
65 |
Peter. |