1 |
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 07:17:31PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:00:32 +0100 |
5 |
> > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> >> >>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Zac Medico wrote: |
7 |
> >> > If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a variant that |
8 |
> >> > uses a constant extension (like .eb) and places the EAPI string |
9 |
> >> > just after the version component of the name. For example: |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> >> > foo-1.0-r1-eapi5.ebuild |
12 |
> >> |
13 |
> >> This is so ugly... I guess I'll retire the same day when such an |
14 |
> >> abomination gets accepted. ;-) |
15 |
> |
16 |
> > I'm sorry, we're down to "it's ugly and someone already said no and |
17 |
> > I'll throw my toys out of the pram if I don't get my way" as the |
18 |
> > arguments against GLEP 55 now? |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Note the smiley in my posting. And yes, it _is_ ugly. |
21 |
|
22 |
Worse, it actually makes parsing _worse_ than it already is. What G55 |
23 |
had going for it was ease of filtering out unsupported eapi's. |
24 |
Literally just filter the readdir results. This behemoth Zac is |
25 |
proposing basically requires throwing regex at it, and *is* able to |
26 |
be tripped up since eapi's aren't strictly integers (1-prefix, |
27 |
4-python, 4-eapi3 if I wanted to intentionally be a dick and break |
28 |
likely non-greedy implementations of the regex). |
29 |
|
30 |
Same angle, embedding it into the version space means that there can |
31 |
be conflicts w/ PN. |
32 |
|
33 |
Basically... embedding it into the versioning like that, besides being |
34 |
ugly as all hell, discards the main benefit g55 had- clear |
35 |
identification of EAPI. |
36 |
|
37 |
It ain't worth it. |
38 |
|
39 |
~brian |