| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:49:04 -0400 |
| 2 |
Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> 4) Putting EAPI inside the ebuild, but in a manner that does not |
| 4 |
> require sourcing using bash (ie comment at top of file). |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> + it solves 1) |
| 7 |
> + it keeps pretty file names |
| 8 |
> + syntax/implementation is trivial |
| 9 |
> - it breaks backwards compatibility (eventually - hacks might delay |
| 10 |
> this) |
| 11 |
> - it does force future ebuilds to have the EAPI line in it |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
- it doubles the number of file reads necessary during resolution. |
| 14 |
- it heavily restricts future syntax and meaning of EAPIs |
| 15 |
- it makes comments have meaning |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Most software packages store version information internal to a file |
| 18 |
> format. I'm actually not aware of many that put it in the filename. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Most software doesn't have to care about backwards / forwards |
| 21 |
compatibility. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives