| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:25:50 +0400 |
| 2 |
Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> If you need eapi in file name what are the technical reasons of |
| 4 |
> putting it into file name extension? Why don't you suggest better |
| 5 |
> ebuild name like: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> pkg-ver-eapi.ebuild or pkg-eapi-ver.ebuild ? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
a) breaks current package managers |
| 10 |
b) has no unambiguous parsing |
| 11 |
c) looks confusing. pkg-1.2.3-1.ebuild or pkg-1-1.2.3.ebuild look a lot |
| 12 |
like Debian-style foo-1.2-3 versions... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> I remember last time I've asked this genone told me that this is not |
| 15 |
> backward compatible. Ok, it's not, but what's the problem to change |
| 16 |
> extension once only for this change? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It means next time we want to introduce another backward incompatible |
| 19 |
change, we have to go through the whole mess all over again. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives