| 1 |
On 2007/12/19, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:12:24 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > You're done as long as ebuilds are written in bash. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Not even that. What if people decide that rather than writing |
| 8 |
> EAPI="blah", "eapi blah" is cleaner? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Yeah, and file names suffixes won't work anymore as soon as it has |
| 11 |
arbitrarily been decided that prefixes should be used instead, or that |
| 12 |
EAPI must disappear because using explicit sets of named features is |
| 13 |
better than using names of some particular sets. That rules only holds |
| 14 |
as long as they don't change is not an argument, but a truism. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> What if metadata is moved out of the ebuild, as some people started |
| 17 |
> doing years ago? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Which metadata's, the ones from the file contents or the ones from the |
| 20 |
file name? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Seriously, i still don't see the start of a rational argument in |
| 23 |
your objections to an in-contents alternative. |
| 24 |
Which lets the subjective disagreement (you prefering to keep bash |
| 25 |
syntax unrestricted at the price of encumbered files names, and me |
| 26 |
prefering to restrict it on one particular line for keeping clean |
| 27 |
"name-version.fixed-extension" files names), for which argumentation |
| 28 |
is hopeless too. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
TGL. |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives