Alistair Bush wrote:
> I just don't think those numbers tell us anything and that should be
> obvious from anyone who has read GLEP 55[1],  we ain't really attempting
> to solve a problem that exists within the tree currently (well the bash
> issue does, in a way ). We are trying to solve issues that ware stopping
> the "tree" moving forward.  Lets evaluate GLEP 55 in the problems it is
> attempting to solve.

I'm afraid you missed the whole point...

- what is in the proposal is a solution looking for a problem: nobody 
updated the glep with the required sections, nobody put up a list of 
bugs/rfe from bugzilla it helps to solve. Vague "leading to the future 
change" declaration aren't what I'd expect.

- Assuming there is an actual reason to move forward (by digging 
bugzilla yourself or deciding to do so as academic exercise) you could 
think about the problem and its solutions (my the email starting this 
thread on dev)

- Given all you need is just to have a way to get the information about 
EAPI before you actually parse the ebuild since the eapi defines how you 
parse it, you can come up with various solutions, the simplest being 
first extract the eapi, being it in a fixed place, and then do the parse.

- Extracting such information could have different costs depending on 
where to place it.

- I started to check if the proposal about having the fixed position as 
the end of the filename is really much more viable than having it at the 
top of the file.

lu


-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero