1 |
On 03/09/2012 10:24 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:02:51 +0000 |
3 |
> James Broadhead <jamesbroadhead@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
>>> At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a |
7 |
>>> different name. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> I think that moving the data to the filename is probably a better |
10 |
>> approach than semi- or repeat parsing, but I prefer preserving the |
11 |
>> .ebuild extension, and think that eapi should be specified similarly |
12 |
>> to ebuild revision, as a suffix. for instance: |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1.ebuild # EAPI0 (or the highest EAPI prior to the |
15 |
>> new schema) |
16 |
>> app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1-e1.ebuild |
17 |
>> app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1-e99.ebuild |
18 |
>> |
19 |
> |
20 |
> if you want to keep .ebuild you need to keep current naming, afaik |
21 |
> package managers fail on invalid names |
22 |
|
23 |
Invalid names like those should only trigger warnings. |
24 |
-- |
25 |
Thanks, |
26 |
Zac |