| 1 |
On 03/09/12 13:02, James Broadhead wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a |
| 4 |
>> different name. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I think that moving the data to the filename is probably a better |
| 7 |
> approach than semi- or repeat parsing, but I prefer preserving the |
| 8 |
> .ebuild extension, and think that eapi should be specified similarly |
| 9 |
> to ebuild revision, as a suffix. for instance: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1.ebuild # EAPI0 (or the highest EAPI prior to the |
| 12 |
> new schema) |
| 13 |
> app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1-e1.ebuild |
| 14 |
> app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1-e99.ebuild |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
One of the benefits of GLEP 55 naming is that old package managers won't |
| 18 |
try to parse them. So, for example, if we put new features in, |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
app-foo/bar-1.0.0.ebuild-5 |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
portage from 2003 won't try to source it. |
Archives