| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009, Steven J Long wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I'd just like to know what the implications would be for users if we |
| 4 |
> kept the .ebuild extension, and a new PMS were rolled out stating |
| 5 |
> that the mangler were allowed to find the EAPI without sourcing (and |
| 6 |
> giving the restrictions) once portage 2.2 was stable, or the ability |
| 7 |
> to handle this backported to 2.1.6, and issued in a release? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Even if we do only a one-time change of the file extension, can we |
| 10 |
ever get rid of the old extension? Or are we then stuck with two |
| 11 |
extensions in the tree until the end of time? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Let's assume for the moment that we change from ".ebuild" to ".eb". |
| 14 |
Then we obviously cannot change all ebuilds in the tree to ".eb", |
| 15 |
otherwise old Portage versions would see an empty tree and there would |
| 16 |
be no upgrade path. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Or am I missing something? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Ulrich |
Archives