1 |
Peter Volkov wrote: |
2 |
> Well for me .ebuild-eapi is much more confusing. |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I still don't see why it's impossible to have eapi as a part of name but |
5 |
> not in extension... |
6 |
|
7 |
Although putting EAPI in the name and not the extension is *slightly* |
8 |
preferable to using the extension, I still do not think that it even |
9 |
belongs there for one main design-based reason: |
10 |
|
11 |
It does not have to be there from a design perspective. |
12 |
|
13 |
All other filename components (name-version-revision.ebuild) uniquely |
14 |
identify the ebuild. EAPI does not (it is meta-information only needed |
15 |
internally by the package manager or by someone interpretting the |
16 |
contents of the file). You could not have two ebuilds, for example, |
17 |
that have identical name/version/revision but different EAPIs - that |
18 |
would not make sense (and yet it would be possible if the EAPI were in |
19 |
the filename, causing the package manager to need rules for choosing the |
20 |
right ebuild to look at). |
21 |
|
22 |
The argument for putting the EAPI in the extension or filename is simply |
23 |
to address a particular technical implementation detail, and there are |
24 |
other, better, ways to solve the problem in my opinion. |
25 |
|
26 |
I would argue that GLEP 54 is also putting needless extra stuff in the |
27 |
filename, but we won't go there right now. :) |
28 |
|
29 |
-Joe |
30 |
-- |
31 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |