Luca Barbato schrieb:
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>>> The simplest way is to change the syncpoint in the new package 
>>> manager and
>>> leave the previous uri with a compatibility repo for the older ones.
>>
>> So we add a new repo each time a new EAPI comes out? Sounds like a big 
>> mess.
> 
> It isn't you just keep 2 repos, one with the minimal eapi and the 
> minimal set of ebuilds needed to upgrade, one with the latest and greatest.
> 
> lu
> 
Then you could also just provide binaries...

But lets face it, it slows down progress, because you will delay every 
change, because stuff like that you will only do if necessary.
And it is still huge pain, from a users point of view, to upgrade stuff.

And that is, what this is about, making EAPI bumps as less painful as 
possible. The filename is the easiest solution for that.

I really fail to see the point, why it is so important, that the 
extension will still be .ebuild in the future.

There is a lot of software, that keeps using the same filename for 
different versions of stuff and in many cases, that is a huge mess.

I still haven't seen any good reasons against it.
And btw, the KDE overlay users don't seem at all to be confused, because 
the packages are named .kdebuild-1 instead of .ebuild.
Portage (and other tools) keeps happily ignoring them, like it should.
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list