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 |