| 1 |
Joe Peterson wrote: |
| 2 |
>>> But what users *really* don't care about is EAPIs, and this GLEP would |
| 3 |
>>> expose that technical detail to them in a very blatent way. |
| 4 |
>> Anyone who cares about ebuilds at a file level has to care about EAPIs. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Not really. A typical user does not need to know about EAPIs at all, |
| 7 |
> but he might want to peruse the portage tree to look for ebuilds. He |
| 8 |
> might also want to grep for KEYWORDS or whatever. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
If the user knows that keywords are set by the KEYWORDS variable, then |
| 11 |
she must be familiar with the EAPI. The meaning of the KEYWORDS variable |
| 12 |
is defined by the EAPI. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
>>> Along those lines, as I've said before, migrating to a new extension, |
| 15 |
>>> *one-time*, as a solution to this, although not optimal, would be far |
| 16 |
>>> more satisfactory than introducing a series of ever-changing |
| 17 |
>>> extensions. |
| 18 |
>> No it won't. It means future EAPIs will be restricted to some |
| 19 |
>> particular source format. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I assume you mean that EAPI needs to be in the file - again, is this |
| 22 |
> bad? Many file formats specify a file format version as part of the file. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Sure. If current EAPI specified that a sequence of four bytes starting |
| 25 |
at offset 0x10 is a little-endian magic number that is used to identify |
| 26 |
an EAPI, that'd be all we want. However, current format definition is |
| 27 |
rather complex; there's nothing as simple as "read several bytes at some |
| 28 |
offset and use them". |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Cheers, |
| 31 |
-jkt |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives