| 1 |
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:41:02 +0200 |
| 2 |
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Piotr Jaroszyński kirjoitti: |
| 4 |
> > This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for |
| 5 |
> > ebuilds (for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> It seems many people don't like the idea of having it in the filename |
| 8 |
> but how about having subdirectories for different eapis. This should |
| 9 |
> even be faster for the package manager as it can just ignore the |
| 10 |
> directories it can't understand instead of having to parse the file |
| 11 |
> names. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> example: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> ${PORTDIR}/<category>/<pkg>/eapiX/ |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
In terms of what it does and doesn't allow, this one's equivalent. But |
| 18 |
it has some new disadvantages: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
* It's several more directory reads. This is a measurable performance |
| 21 |
hit on something that's already i/o bound. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
* It's harder to work with for developers. Ebuilds are no longer all in |
| 24 |
the same place, and it's harder to see what you're working with. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
On a subjective niceness scale, I'd suspect that the file extension is |
| 27 |
less unnice. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives