Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Santiago M. Mola" <coldwind@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:38:01
Message-Id: 3c32af40806110737s6cd6d79nfc489ece05d8cf6a@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 by Olivier Galibert
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