| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:21:33PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
> Tiziano M??ller wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> What is proposed in glep-55 seems to aim to solve both issues at the same |
| 4 |
>>> time (it isn't stated) by switching file extension every time the eapi is |
| 5 |
>>> changed. This is slightly against the principle of the least surprise and |
| 6 |
>>> apparently is disliked by enough people to lead the situation to be |
| 7 |
>>> discussed in the council. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>> Instead of switching file extension every time the eapi is changed you |
| 10 |
>> could also increment it only when a new EAPI breaks sourcing the ebuild |
| 11 |
>> compared to the requirements of the prior EAPI. |
| 12 |
>> (This way you'd in fact split EAPI into a major- and a minor-version.) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Makes you getting to have to do the two stage source again AND you get |
| 15 |
> another non obvious condition "Should I bump the eapi internally or the |
| 16 |
> filename?" |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The glep is quite clear on that point. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> The main point again what is proposed in glep-55 is it that isn't invasive |
| 21 |
> and non-transparent to users and developers. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It's not all that invasive. All that changes is that the EAPI goes at |
| 24 |
the end of the filename and you don't set it in the ebuild. Developers |
| 25 |
should be able to keep up with this, and if a user asks it's easy enough |
| 26 |
to say that "it's a new version of ebuild, it has newer features see |
| 27 |
www.blah.org/blah for details". And really, users already ask what EAPI |
| 28 |
is so it's not that much headache. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
--------- |
| 32 |
Thomas Anderson |
| 33 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 34 |
///////// |
| 35 |
Areas of responsibility: |
| 36 |
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council |
| 37 |
--------- |
Archives