| 1 |
On 13 March 2012 06:53, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> There are very good reasons not to embed this information in the |
| 4 |
> filename. That it makes the filename harder to parse for the human eye |
| 5 |
> and more difficult to type is one of them. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Besides, we already have a council decision about that GLEP. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Difficulty in typing them is not really much of an argument, |
| 10 |
considering the present complexity with file-names already having |
| 11 |
versions encoded in them. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
And difficulty reading them isn't much of an argument really either. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
But difficulty identifying the format systematically seems a |
| 16 |
reasonable enough objection, and for this, I can see the translation |
| 17 |
of |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
abz-123.ebuild-5 to -> abz-123.eapi5.eb |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Being a more practical change ( or something of that nature ). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
At least that way, its easier to have a way to find "all ebuilds" |
| 24 |
without needing extension permutation. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Another thought: Presently we have versions encoded in the file name. |
| 27 |
If we ever decide we need to change our versioning syntax or |
| 28 |
versioning semantics, we might be up the creek without a paddle, and |
| 29 |
EAPI being *in* the file will probably make that harder, and I'd |
| 30 |
probably prefer some sort of out-of-band location for EAPI in that |
| 31 |
situation too. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Kent |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
| 37 |
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
Archives