| 1 |
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:03:12 +0000 |
| 2 |
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> * Set the EAPI inside the ebuild in a way that makes it easy to |
| 4 |
> fetch it This is ok as atm only EAPI=1 is in the tree, so there is no |
| 5 |
> backward compatibility issue. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
It's both a backwards and a forwards compatibility issue. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> * Have a new ebuild/eclass extension ".eapi-$EAPI" |
| 10 |
> This is for ebuilds for other package managers; it is envisaged by |
| 11 |
> some that this will become the new ebuild format since it enables |
| 12 |
> quick access to the EAPI without accessing the file contents. Full |
| 13 |
> ebuild names are the primary key for the portage database. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Full ebuild names as a primary key is bad. It means you have to |
| 16 |
normalise versions early on -- equality and equivalence are different |
| 17 |
for ebuild names already. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
And eclasses are an entirely separate issue. They need to be dealt with |
| 20 |
differently, ideally starting with EAPI 2. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives