| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:31:09 -0600 |
| 2 |
Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I think a separate file, especially one that uses a standard XML |
| 4 |
> format, would be a fine place for things that the PM needs. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
XML is a pain in the ass. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Just because we do not use it this way now does not mean it is not a |
| 9 |
> good idea. Also, the EAPI would be out-of-band and not require |
| 10 |
> sourcing of the bash script to determine. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The file extension is out-of-band and yet still coupled to the |
| 13 |
individual ebuilds in an obvious way. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > It also moves the EAPI definition even further away from the ebuild, |
| 16 |
> > which makes it even harder to work with. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Harder to work with in what way? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It decouples the EAPI and the thing written in that EAPI. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> > And, of course, it's not backwards compatible, so it'd still need a |
| 23 |
> > file extension change. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I am not convinced of this. As others have stated, portage/PM should |
| 26 |
> be upgraded with the new capability well in advance of new EAPIs. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
But that's exactly what EAPIs are there to solve. Having to wait two |
| 29 |
years (or however long Gentoo goes between releases these days) just to |
| 30 |
use simple new features slows down progress even more. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives