| 1 |
В Срд, 11/06/2008 в 08:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:25:50 +0400 |
| 3 |
> Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > If you need eapi in file name what are the technical reasons of |
| 5 |
> > putting it into file name extension? Why don't you suggest better |
| 6 |
> > ebuild name like: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > pkg-ver-eapi.ebuild or pkg-eapi-ver.ebuild ? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> a) breaks current package managers |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That's why I suggested to change .ebuild extension or fix package |
| 13 |
manager now and wait another year to start using such syntax. Your |
| 14 |
answer about extension change |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> It means next time we want to introduce another backward incompatible |
| 17 |
> change, we have to go through the whole mess all over again. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
is not clear. What changes you have in mind? If we already have pkg, |
| 20 |
eapi and version in filename what else are you going to add there? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> b) has no unambiguous parsing |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Why? For example, just add word eapi and that it: pkg-1.2.3-eapi-1.bld. |
| 25 |
That's just an example to show that this is possible. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> c) looks confusing. pkg-1.2.3-1.ebuild or pkg-1-1.2.3.ebuild look a |
| 28 |
> lot like Debian-style foo-1.2-3 versions... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Well for me .ebuild-eapi is much more confusing. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I still don't see why it's impossible to have eapi as a part of name but |
| 34 |
not in extension... |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Peter. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives