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