| 1 |
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> attaching the GLEP. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> most current version: |
| 7 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html |
| 8 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.txt |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Abstract |
| 12 |
> ======== |
| 13 |
> This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for ebuilds |
| 14 |
> (for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I probably missed some of the stuff leading up to this GLEP, but what is |
| 17 |
the problem with having the EAPI in the file and determining it by |
| 18 |
looking at the file contents? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Making the file extension variable by adding "-<EAPI>" to it would, in |
| 21 |
my opinion, make the portage tree a bit less clean and not as elegant. |
| 22 |
Wouldn't software (like editors determining file type by looking at what |
| 23 |
is after the ".") also need to be reworked to recognize a variable |
| 24 |
string after "-" at the end? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I imagine a lot of people do things now like 'find . -name "*.ebuild" | |
| 27 |
xargs grep ...'. Not that they could not change their habbits, but |
| 28 |
forgetting to add a more complex matching rule could lead to errors |
| 29 |
here. It just seems to me that adding complexity to what is basically a |
| 30 |
file extension is undesirable unless there is a very good reason why it |
| 31 |
cannot be done a different way. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-Joe |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives