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 |