1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:00:32 +0100 |
4 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> >>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Zac Medico wrote: |
6 |
>> > If we do go with a variant of GLEP 55, I'd prefer a variant that |
7 |
>> > uses a constant extension (like .eb) and places the EAPI string |
8 |
>> > just after the version component of the name. For example: |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> > foo-1.0-r1-eapi5.ebuild |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> This is so ugly... I guess I'll retire the same day when such an |
13 |
>> abomination gets accepted. ;-) |
14 |
|
15 |
> I'm sorry, we're down to "it's ugly and someone already said no and |
16 |
> I'll throw my toys out of the pram if I don't get my way" as the |
17 |
> arguments against GLEP 55 now? |
18 |
|
19 |
Note the smiley in my posting. And yes, it _is_ ugly. |
20 |
|
21 |
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
22 |
|
23 |
> The person who wrote it is one of Satan's little minions. Also, |
24 |
> change is bad. |
25 |
|
26 |
And you think that this is better? |
27 |
|
28 |
Ulrich |