| 1 |
Am Montag, den 23.02.2009, 22:25 +1300 schrieb Alistair Bush: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Tiziano Müller wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> What is proposed in glep-55 seems to aim to solve both issues at the |
| 5 |
> >> same time (it isn't stated) by switching file extension every time the |
| 6 |
> >> eapi is changed. This is slightly against the principle of the least |
| 7 |
> >> surprise and apparently is disliked by enough people to lead the |
| 8 |
> >> situation to be discussed in the council. |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Instead of switching file extension every time the eapi is changed you |
| 12 |
> > could also increment it only when a new EAPI breaks sourcing the ebuild |
| 13 |
> > compared to the requirements of the prior EAPI. |
| 14 |
> > (This way you'd in fact split EAPI into a major- and a minor-version.) |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Doesn't that just add extra complexity for no gain. |
| 18 |
Yes, sure. I was just looking for a solution for the "we have countless .eapi-X after 10 years" problem. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Personally I don't see what the problem is with simply implementing |
| 21 |
> GLEP-55. It's the best solution. |
| 22 |
> It should be pretty simple to implement too. Certainly it wouldn't be |
| 23 |
> anymore difficult to implement than your solution. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I fully agree. |
Archives