| 1 |
On 2007/12/19, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:08:52 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > There's no need to introduce a potential infinity of new files |
| 6 |
> > extensions for that. A single one is enough: just call files which |
| 7 |
> > use the rule i've proposed "foo.gbuild" instead of "foo.ebuild", and |
| 8 |
> > you're done. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> You're done until someone wants to introduce a change large enough |
| 11 |
> that it breaks the dodgy pattern matching package managers are doing |
| 12 |
> to get the EAPI currently. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
You're done as long as ebuilds are written in bash. If there ever is |
| 15 |
a new xml-based format, or whatever else, then yes, a third extension |
| 16 |
will be needed. I don't see that as an argument for introducing an |
| 17 |
infinity of extensions right now though. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
TGL. |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives