Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:56:45
Message-Id: 4F5A5243.9080600@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds by Michael Orlitzky
1 On 03/09/2012 10:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
2 > On 03/09/12 13:02, James Broadhead wrote:
3 >> On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote:
4 >>> At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a
5 >>> different name.
6 >>
7 >> I think that moving the data to the filename is probably a better
8 >> approach than semi- or repeat parsing, but I prefer preserving the
9 >> .ebuild extension, and think that eapi should be specified similarly
10 >> to ebuild revision, as a suffix. for instance:
11 >>
12 >> app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1.ebuild # EAPI0 (or the highest EAPI prior to the
13 >> new schema)
14 >> app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1-e1.ebuild
15 >> app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1-e99.ebuild
16 >>
17 >
18 > One of the benefits of GLEP 55 naming is that old package managers won't
19 > try to parse them. So, for example, if we put new features in,
20 >
21 > app-foo/bar-1.0.0.ebuild-5
22 >
23 > portage from 2003 won't try to source it.
24
25 Every software product has an end of life. I think if a system hasn't
26 been updated in the last 2 years or so, then it's fair to assume that it
27 will never be updated. So, all relevant versions of portage should
28 simply show a warning message if the encounter an ebuild name such as
29 "app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1-e99.ebuild".
30 --
31 Thanks,
32 Zac

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com>