| 1 |
> Steve Long wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> Really. It's a heck of a lot cleaner in the filename suffix. |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>> Nah, it's an awful hack and you know it. It has nothing to do with package |
| 6 |
>> naming and is unnecessary exposure of internal data. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Forgive me if I missed this in the previous 500 emails, but I still |
| 10 |
don't quite understand why you can't just put EAPI="whatever" in the |
| 11 |
ebuild in a fixed place and leave it at that. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The biggest objection to this that I've seen is that somebody might want |
| 14 |
to set it dynamically, which would be impossible to handle without |
| 15 |
sourcing it. However, you can't possibly put dynamic content in the |
| 16 |
filename (PLEASE let's not try!), so it sounds like we're stuck with |
| 17 |
fixed EAPI settings either way. So, why not just put it in the ebuild? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If I were designing a binary file format I'd probably have a header with |
| 20 |
a version number in a fixed position, and a length-of-header field in a |
| 21 |
fixed position - then you could extend it all you want and old readers |
| 22 |
could either safely ignore it or at least know where the fields it |
| 23 |
understands are. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Now, obviously we don't want to make every dev do anything like that on |
| 26 |
a manually-edited file. However, we could simply specify a simple |
| 27 |
format for the EAPI variable, and then have QA software (repoman/etc) |
| 28 |
make sure that it is in the correct format. Then it could be safely |
| 29 |
parsed with a regexp or whatever. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Am I missing something? |
Archives