Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:29:03
Message-Id: 20325.50878.339612.984592@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds by Ralph Sennhauser
1 >>>>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
2
3 > If we want to keep .ebuild but avoid the compat issue another
4 > variant would be "EAPI in header comment and one-time change of
5 > ebuild location" or more formal:
6
7 > 6 EAPI in header comment and one-time change of ebuild location:
8
9 > - add a directory $CATEGORY/$PN/ebuilds to ebuild repositories.
10 > - all files in $CATEGORY/$PN/ebuilds are ebuilds and are using a
11 > well defined first line to denote the EAPI.
12 > - For practical reasons the header should be a bash comment. PMs
13 > shouldn't have to remove or skip first line from file for further
14 > processing of ebuilds supporting bash comments.
15 > - the .ebuild extension can be kept but could be changed if ever
16 > desired. This due to the filename only having meaning if the
17 > EAPI of the file is known.
18
19 Similar ideas have been discussed before, in 2007 and 2009:
20 <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_fe3f0b9d050ead86aed9b42ce7ec93b0.xml>
21 <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2e41942be33d8595cf7152aa91417fbe.xml>
22
23 > Comparing this with GLEP 55 then this allows us to keep .ebuild in
24 > return of some overhead with roughly the same pros and cons
25 > otherwise, right?
26
27 From a technical point of view, it's the same pros and cons. There are
28 however non-technical aspects for all these propositions. For example,
29 we would have to live with ebuilds in different directories for a long
30 transition period (as we would have to live with two file extensions
31 for a long time if we changed that).
32
33 Ulrich