| 1 |
I have no strong opinion about this. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> 2) EAPI in file extension |
| 4 |
> - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild |
| 5 |
> a) .ebuild-<eapi> |
| 6 |
> - ignored by current Portage |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
simple, straightforward but ugly |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> b) .<eapi>.ebuild |
| 11 |
> - current Portage does not work with this |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
this only has disadvantages in front of a) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> c) .<eapi>.<new extension> |
| 16 |
> - ignored by current Portage |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
same as a) but maybe less ugly |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild |
| 21 |
> - Allows changing global scope |
| 22 |
> - EAPI can't be changed in an existing ebuild so the PM can trust |
| 23 |
> the value in the cache |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
This doesn't need a locked down place, just some strict way of setting |
| 26 |
it, like at most one EAPI="constant_string_without_space" so that grep |
| 27 |
& friends can catch it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> - Does not allow changing versioning rules unless version becomes a |
| 30 |
> normal metadata variable |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I'm not entirely sure about this and would need some real |
| 33 |
example/argument in order to be convinced |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> * Needs more accesses to cache as now you don't have to load older |
| 36 |
> versions if the latest is not masked |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
true but this "more" would need to be measured and opposed to the |
| 39 |
number of metadata loads in a dep resolution procedure. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> a) <new extension> |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
doesn't have the one year wait drawback and doesn't mess with pm |
| 44 |
implementation details (eapi) with package names that shall represent |
| 45 |
upstream ones. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> b) new subdirectory like ebuilds/ |
| 48 |
> - we could drop extension all together so don't have to argue about |
| 49 |
> it any more |
| 50 |
> - more directory reads to get the list of ebuilds in a repository |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
I see no advantage there vs 3.a) |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> c) .ebuild in current directory |
| 55 |
> - needs one year wait |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
That could have been done one year ago and would be done now; I think |
| 58 |
it's still fine now because I don't expect major behavior changes in |
| 59 |
the ebuild format within one year. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
To summarize, I would retain 3.a as best solution, having the "usable |
| 62 |
right now" advantage of current glep55 and keeping the ebuild's file |
| 63 |
names (more or less) consistent with upstream ones. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Alexis. |
Archives