| 1 |
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:53:48 +0000 |
| 2 |
Simon Cooper <thecoop@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> As one of those 'users' (an AT actually), I would find having the eapi |
| 4 |
> in the filename quite annoying - especially having several ebuilds in |
| 5 |
> the tree that differ _only_ in their eapi number (and doing different |
| 6 |
> things). It just Seems Wrong |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Which is why the GLEP disallows it... |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Filenames are generally quite mutable - changing the filename is just |
| 11 |
> a single 'mv', whereas if you need to edit the file to change the type |
| 12 |
> that generally requires more effort, you need to think more about what |
| 13 |
> you're doing, and so theres less chance to break stuff (a eapi-1 file |
| 14 |
> accidentally gets moved to eapi-2, lots of stuff breaks, whereas if |
| 15 |
> its in the file you notice you need to edit it to actually make it |
| 16 |
> eapi-2 compliant) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I suggest you try using gcc to compile a C++ file with a .c file |
| 19 |
extension... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> And please, please, don't base the decision on who can shout loudest |
| 22 |
> or longest. Think through each option (filename, inside file, |
| 23 |
> metadata, Manifest, directories, seperate db, ...) logically, weigh |
| 24 |
> the pros and cons, and decide on the one that would best fit gentoo |
| 25 |
> on technical grounds, not just on the one backed by the most vocal |
| 26 |
> people. If you make the wrong decision it could seriously screw |
| 27 |
> gentoo over and make it very painful in the future |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Oh, we did all that long before the GLEP was written. The filename |
| 30 |
solution is by far the best -- it's the only one that hasn't had any |
| 31 |
technical objections raised to it. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives