| 1 |
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:26:16 +0000 |
| 2 |
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Are you really telling me you are going to write _one_ ebuild |
| 4 |
> with /that/ god-awful hackery in it? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Are you really suggesting that no-one ever will? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Sticking to a single EAPI="xx" format in the ebuild means we don't |
| 9 |
> have the *hack* of duplicating information in the filename (and the |
| 10 |
> whole {pre,post}src issue, QA checks for human error since this is |
| 11 |
> redundant info) simply to avoid parsing a config file. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
There is no duplication of information, nor redundancy. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The pre/post source issue exists regardless of how EAPI is set -- it's |
| 16 |
just that with filename EAPIs, you aren't restricted to post source |
| 17 |
changes. It's explicit in the GLEP because it's important that package |
| 18 |
mangers get it right, but it's not a new issue. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Ebuilds are not config files. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Really. It's a heck of a lot cleaner in the filename suffix. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives