1 |
Petteri Räty wrote: |
2 |
> Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many |
3 |
> people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order |
4 |
> to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is |
5 |
> only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it |
6 |
> easy to read through. The existing thread should be used for actual |
7 |
> discussion about the GLEP and the alternatives. This should be a useful |
8 |
> experiment to see if we can control ourselves :) |
9 |
> |
10 |
|
11 |
Thank you Petteri. I knew there was a reason I voted for you. |
12 |
|
13 |
> |
14 |
> 2) EAPI in file extension |
15 |
> - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild |
16 |
> a) .ebuild-<eapi> |
17 |
> - ignored by current Portage |
18 |
> b) .<eapi>.ebuild |
19 |
> - current Portage does not work with this |
20 |
> c) .<eapi>.<new extension> |
21 |
> - ignored by current Portage |
22 |
|
23 |
a) then c). I personally think b) is a bad idea that will just slow the |
24 |
implementation of this even more. |
25 |
|
26 |
> |
27 |
> 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild |
28 |
> - Allows changing global scope |
29 |
> - EAPI can't be changed in an existing ebuild so the PM can trust |
30 |
> the value in the cache |
31 |
> - Does not allow changing versioning rules unless version becomes a |
32 |
> normal metadata variable |
33 |
> * Needs more accesses to cache as now you don't have to load older |
34 |
> versions if the latest is not masked |
35 |
> a) <new extension> |
36 |
> b) new subdirectory like ebuilds/ |
37 |
> - we could drop extension all together so don't have to argue about |
38 |
> it any more |
39 |
> - more directory reads to get the list of ebuilds in a repository |
40 |
> c) .ebuild in current directory |
41 |
> - needs one year wait |
42 |
|
43 |
If it really comes to it b)? Tho it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. |
44 |
|
45 |
> |
46 |
> Regards, |
47 |
> Petteri |
48 |
> |