1 |
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM, 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 |
|
19 |
If the extension was based on the fact that ebuilds are bash scripts, |
20 |
they'd have .bash extension. The .ebuild extension means a specific |
21 |
kind of bash script and it doesn't seem wrong to change the extension |
22 |
if that "specific kind" changes, even if bash is still the |
23 |
interpreter. Even if we switched to sh or zsh I doubt we'd use the .sh |
24 |
or .zsh extension. |
25 |
|
26 |
Regards, |
27 |
-- |
28 |
Santiago M. Mola |
29 |
Jabber ID: cooldwind@×××××.com |
30 |
-- |
31 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |