| 1 |
Olivier Galibert <galibert@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > <!-- EAPI="3" --> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> *Then* would be the time to change the extension. As long as the |
| 6 |
> ebuild is bash-parseable with an appropriate environment, it doesn't |
| 7 |
> make sense to change the extension because a env-variable set or a |
| 8 |
> comment are more natural methods. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If/when the format changes to something not parseable by bash, then it |
| 11 |
> will be time to change the extension. And then how to mark |
| 12 |
> (sub-)version will depend on the chosen new format, in case of xml |
| 13 |
> that would be the dtd information. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I suspect the rejection of the extension change will be there as long |
| 16 |
> as the fundamental format (bash script) doesn't change. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Well said. This is something that I've heard bandied about on IRC now |
| 19 |
and then, and sounds to me (notably *not* a package manager developer) |
| 20 |
like a fairly reasonable compromise. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
To the proponents of GLEP55: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Is there some reason that GLEP55 is preferable to this? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Are there reasons why a particular filename extension could not apply |
| 27 |
to a range of EAPIs? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Why not just bump the filename suffix when it is required to support a |
| 30 |
new EAPI that breaks the sourcing rules of previous EAPIs? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Or will backwards-incompatible changes be happening so frequently that |
| 33 |
the package suffix will have to change for every EAPI bump anyway, |
| 34 |
which would make this proposal equivalent to GLEP55? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Jim Ramsay |
| 38 |
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm) |
Archives