1 |
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:29:34 -0500 |
2 |
Richard Freeman <rich@××××××××××××××.net> wrote: |
3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> > Ok. What's the EAPI for the following ebuild that's written in an |
5 |
> > EAPI that hasn't been published yet? And how would I extract it? |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > # Copyright blah blah |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > import vim-spell using language="en" |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Counterexample. How do you determine the eapi for the following file, |
13 |
> which uses an EAPI that is yet unpublished - but which specifies that |
14 |
> the EAPI NOT go in the filename: foo-1.2.ebuild |
15 |
|
16 |
You're back to using a pre-source EAPI to extract the real EAPI then, |
17 |
which is the way things are currently -- and it means that any EAPI |
18 |
that specifies what you describe has to be sufficiently close to EAPI 0 |
19 |
that package managers that only understand EAPI 0 will work with it. |
20 |
|
21 |
> Making a decision to put the EAPI in the filename for all time doesn't |
22 |
> seem any less restricting than making a decision to put EAPI=1 or |
23 |
> EAPI="1" in the ebuild for all time. And the latter is a whole lot |
24 |
> less messy as far as I can see. |
25 |
|
26 |
It's an awful lot less restrictive. |
27 |
|
28 |
> So far the only objection I've seen to putting EAPI in the ebuild is |
29 |
> that at some point in the future we might want to do it differently. |
30 |
> Well, that is nice, but the same issue would apply to putting it in |
31 |
> the filename - we could want to change that someday too. And if we |
32 |
> put it in the filename why would we want to put it in a function or |
33 |
> whatever inside the ebuild as well? Wouldn't that just be redundant. |
34 |
|
35 |
If the GLEP is followed, you *can* change the filename to absolutely |
36 |
anything that isn't either *.ebuild or *.ebuild-(any-previous-eapi), or |
37 |
various silly things like metadata.xml and files. |
38 |
|
39 |
> And if the whole point of this is to allow massive changes to ebuild |
40 |
> format - why not wait until a need for such a change exists before |
41 |
> instituting it. Why not defer this GLEP until it has some benefit and |
42 |
> not just pain associated with it? |
43 |
|
44 |
There is plenty of need, as you would know had you either read the GLEP |
45 |
or paid attention on this list recently. |
46 |
|
47 |
-- |
48 |
Ciaran McCreesh |