Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:56:01 -0500
Richard Freeman <rich@××××××××××××××.net> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Because a) a future EAPI might want to change EAPI into a function
> > rather than a variable,
>
> Why?  It couldn't be dynamic - not if you're going to put it in the
> filename as well.  And why have it in two places?  If you are going to
> put the EAPI in the filename, why put it inside the ebuild as well?
> We don't do that with version numbers or package names.

eapi 3

Is considered by some to look nicer than

EAPI="3"

> > b) there are a zillion ways of setting a
> > variable in bash and people already use all of them and c)
> > introducing new weird format requirements is silly.
>
> But this GLEP is already proposing a format requirement.  It is just
> putting it in the filename instead of in the ebuild contents.  It
> isn't like you could just put anything in the filename anywhere you
> want and the package manager will be able to understand it.  If devs
> are going to have to get correct "-1" at the end of the filename, why
> couldn't they also get right "EAPI=1" inside the file?

Because in the future we might want to have something other than
setting EAPIs by EAPI=1.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh