| 1 |
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:41:13 -0400 |
| 2 |
"Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:12:28PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote |
| 4 |
> > This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not |
| 5 |
> > to use GLEP 55. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> A filename should not be (ab)used as a database. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
You mean we shouldn't have name, version and format in there? Because |
| 10 |
those are there already. All GLEP 55 does is make the format part more |
| 11 |
specific. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> 1) Let's talk generic. Right now, we're talking about EAPI. In |
| 14 |
> future, what other (meta)data and characteristics will we need to |
| 15 |
> know? What else will be tacked onto the filename? EAPI, and any |
| 16 |
> other critical (meta)data should be declared early on in the ebuild. |
| 17 |
> That's what the ebuild is for. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
EAPI is special. You need to know EAPI to be able to get the rest of |
| 20 |
the metadata. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> 2) Any potential ebuild processor that's incapable of looking for |
| 23 |
> regex "^EAPI=" in a textfile, amd parsing the numbers that follow, |
| 24 |
> has no business being used to process ebuilds. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That doesn't get you the EAPI. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives