| 1 |
Joe Peterson schrieb: |
| 2 |
> Bernd Steinhauser wrote: |
| 3 |
>> And that is, what this is about, making EAPI bumps as less painful as |
| 4 |
>> possible. The filename is the easiest solution for that. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> In any design, there are "easy" short-cuts that can be taken. But |
| 7 |
> sometimes these short-cuts break paradigms that are fundamental. If you |
| 8 |
> wanted, you could throw a bunch of things into the filename and make it |
| 9 |
> 255 characters long to avoid reading the file, but that clearly would be |
| 10 |
> a pretty bad design. |
| 11 |
Yes, in principle you could do that, but in principle you could do the |
| 12 |
same with the first line in a file or whatever you are suggesting. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>> I really fail to see the point, why it is so important, that the |
| 16 |
>> extension will still be .ebuild in the future. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> There is a lot of software, that keeps using the same filename for |
| 19 |
>> different versions of stuff and in many cases, that is a huge mess. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Is the "huge mess" you are thinking of the basic reality that software |
| 22 |
> of any reasonable complexity needs to deal with file formats evolving? |
| 23 |
> If so, that is exactly why EAPIs now are being introduced. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> But almost all software deals with this transparently - no need to |
| 26 |
> expose it to the user, and sticking the version in the filename is both |
| 27 |
> fragile (renaming the file can alter it) and seems like a hack. |
| 28 |
Wow, altering the content of a file can alter it, too. What is the point |
| 29 |
there? |
| 30 |
BTW, so you are suggesting, that we shouldn't put the PV in the file name? |
| 31 |
We shouldn't put the revision in the file name? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Hm, so in the future, there will be a "metadata.xml" file, that defines: |
| 34 |
- EAPI |
| 35 |
- PV |
| 36 |
- KEYWORDS |
| 37 |
- more stuff |
| 38 |
of the ebuild? Sounds complicated. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
>> I still haven't seen any good reasons against it. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> I realize that there are two camps of people here. One camp sees |
| 43 |
> mangling the filename extension as an undesirable way to deal with this, |
| 44 |
> and the other camp simply sees no problem with this. |
| 45 |
Seems to be like that. |
| 46 |
But I am really impress, how far some people go, to avoid renaming the |
| 47 |
file extension of a file. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives