| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:03:12 +0000 |
| 3 |
> Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> * Set the EAPI inside the ebuild in a way that makes it easy to |
| 5 |
>> fetch it This is ok as atm only EAPI=1 is in the tree, so there is no |
| 6 |
>> backward compatibility issue. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It's both a backwards and a forwards compatibility issue. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
Yeah, so forwards into the future where it's impossible to maintain this |
| 11 |
format (er..) there'll be another type of ebuild for your purported |
| 12 |
long-term solution. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
>> * Have a new ebuild/eclass extension ".eapi-$EAPI" |
| 15 |
>> This is for ebuilds for other package managers; it is envisaged by |
| 16 |
>> some that this will become the new ebuild format since it enables |
| 17 |
>> quick access to the EAPI without accessing the file contents. |
| 18 |
<snip trivia about backend database formats> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> And eclasses are an entirely separate issue. They need to be dealt with |
| 21 |
> differently, ideally starting with EAPI 2. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
But they come under the scope of this discussion, since this is about the |
| 24 |
long-term future of *every* EAPI. So let's discuss them. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives