| 1 |
Luca Barbato schrieb: |
| 2 |
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> The simplest way is to change the syncpoint in the new package |
| 4 |
>>> manager and |
| 5 |
>>> leave the previous uri with a compatibility repo for the older ones. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> So we add a new repo each time a new EAPI comes out? Sounds like a big |
| 8 |
>> mess. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It isn't you just keep 2 repos, one with the minimal eapi and the |
| 11 |
> minimal set of ebuilds needed to upgrade, one with the latest and greatest. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> lu |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
Then you could also just provide binaries... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
But lets face it, it slows down progress, because you will delay every |
| 18 |
change, because stuff like that you will only do if necessary. |
| 19 |
And it is still huge pain, from a users point of view, to upgrade stuff. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And that is, what this is about, making EAPI bumps as less painful as |
| 22 |
possible. The filename is the easiest solution for that. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I really fail to see the point, why it is so important, that the |
| 25 |
extension will still be .ebuild in the future. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
There is a lot of software, that keeps using the same filename for |
| 28 |
different versions of stuff and in many cases, that is a huge mess. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I still haven't seen any good reasons against it. |
| 31 |
And btw, the KDE overlay users don't seem at all to be confused, because |
| 32 |
the packages are named .kdebuild-1 instead of .ebuild. |
| 33 |
Portage (and other tools) keeps happily ignoring them, like it should. |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives