| 1 |
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:49:08 -0600 |
| 2 |
Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I'm not saying it's a lot harder. But it is more complex and less |
| 4 |
> elegant. Also, it is error-prone. If someone, by habit, looks for |
| 5 |
> all "*.ebuild", he will miss a portion of the ebuilds and not even |
| 6 |
> realize it at first (or ever). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Yes, if something changes, and people carry on doing the old thing by |
| 9 |
habit, then things go wrong. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Still, the GLEP addresses the very point of what logic has to be |
| 12 |
> followed if the EAPI exists in the filename, in the file, or both. It |
| 13 |
> talks of "pre-source" EAPIs and "post-source" EAPIs. Complicated. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
And if the GLEP didn't address it people would complain that it allowed |
| 16 |
undefined behaviour. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Well, in general, if you rely on extensions changing every time a |
| 19 |
> program cannot deal with a new feature of a file format, it would be |
| 20 |
> quite crazy. For example, if C programs had to start using ".c-2", |
| 21 |
> ".c-3", etc., it would get ugly fast. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Which is why programs that use any major C feature introduced since |
| 24 |
1980 use the extension '.cc' or '.cpp'. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Also, it is easy to build EAPI checking into portage now, and when |
| 27 |
> the requisite time passes, you only need to deal with situations |
| 28 |
> where *very* old portage versions are still in use. Since portage is |
| 29 |
> typically the first thing the system upgrades after a sync, I don't |
| 30 |
> see a big issue. Or, if that is not acceptable, see my comment at |
| 31 |
> the end about a one-time change to a new extension like ".eb". |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
You completely miss the point of the GLEP. We need new extensions |
| 34 |
precisely because current package managers can't handle future EAPIs |
| 35 |
cleanly, and we need to carry on using new extensions because otherwise |
| 36 |
we restrict what future EAPIs can do. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> But what users *really* don't care about is EAPIs, and this GLEP would |
| 39 |
> expose that technical detail to them in a very blatent way. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Anyone who cares about ebuilds at a file level has to care about EAPIs. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> Along those lines, as I've said before, migrating to a new extension, |
| 44 |
> *one-time*, as a solution to this, although not optimal, would be far |
| 45 |
> more satisfactory than introducing a series of ever-changing |
| 46 |
> extensions. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
No it won't. It means future EAPIs will be restricted to some |
| 49 |
particular source format. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives