Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: "Wulf C. Krueger" <wk@×××××××××××.de>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:11:41
Message-Id: 20120313190825.GL7579@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash by "Wulf C. Krueger"
1 On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:10:14PM +0100, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
2 > On 13.03.2012 07:22, Brian Harring wrote:
3 > > Still is god awfuly fugly though, and reliant on digits as the first
4 > > character to be readable. Consider exheres:
5 > > dev-foo/foo-bar-2.3.4.eapiexheres.eb
6 >
7 > Just for the record, your example is wrong. For exheres, it would be
8 >
9 > foo-bar-2.3.4.exheres-0
10 >
11 > "0" being the version. Simple, elegant, works.
12
13 The example was right; you just didn't bother to read the thread.
14
15 The proposal was to jam EAPI into the version namespace, rather than
16 extension. Meaning they're proposing that foo-bar example be
17
18 foo-bar-2.3.4.eapiexheres-0.ebuild
19
20 As I said in the email you didn't bother to actually read, such a
21 proposal is fairly whacked and takes away the actual benefits of G55;
22 aka, do G55 before doing that attrocity.
23
24 I'll skip replying to the rest of the snark in the email; I will
25 however point out that toolish behaviour like above doesn't do G55 any
26 favors in trying to reverse 5 years of people saying "I don't like the
27 aesthetics".
28
29 That said, feel free to keep screaming into the wind about it.
30
31 ~harring