1 |
Tiziano Müller wrote: |
2 |
>> What is proposed in glep-55 seems to aim to solve both issues at the |
3 |
>> same time (it isn't stated) by switching file extension every time the |
4 |
>> eapi is changed. This is slightly against the principle of the least |
5 |
>> surprise and apparently is disliked by enough people to lead the |
6 |
>> situation to be discussed in the council. |
7 |
>> |
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 main point again what is proposed in glep-55 is it that isn't |
19 |
invasive and non-transparent to users and developers. |
20 |
|
21 |
As stated in the analysis, the user side is already covered by the fact |
22 |
users use the cache, the developer side would require a two stage |
23 |
sourcing when committing to remain transparent. |
24 |
|
25 |
What we need to balance is if the invasive proposal is simpler than |
26 |
having a two stage sourcing done. |
27 |
|
28 |
lu |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
|
32 |
Luca Barbato |
33 |
Gentoo Council Member |
34 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
35 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |