Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:46:12
Message-Id: 20071221134149.2f4494b9@blueyonder.co.uk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) by Richard Freeman
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 which uses an EAPI that is yet unpublished - but which specifies that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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature