1 |
On 03/12/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
2 |
> On 03/12/12 13:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
3 |
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100 |
4 |
>> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is |
6 |
>>> still not needed. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55 |
9 |
>> definitely works, whereas other solutions might work so long as we |
10 |
>> don't do something unexpected. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to |
13 |
>> use GLEP 55. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Not understanding any of the politics involved, what are the technical |
17 |
> arguments against it? |
18 |
|
19 |
I think the bulk of resistance has been due to its use of an infinite |
20 |
series of extensions, like .ebuild-5, .ebuild-6 and so on. GLEP 55 |
21 |
itself has since been amended to include a "one time extension change" |
22 |
option [1]. |
23 |
|
24 |
[1] |
25 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html#eapi-in-the-filename-with-one-time-extension-change |
26 |
-- |
27 |
Thanks, |
28 |
Zac |