| 1 |
On 03/12/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/12/12 13:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100 |
| 4 |
>> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is |
| 6 |
>>> still not needed. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55 |
| 9 |
>> definitely works, whereas other solutions might work so long as we |
| 10 |
>> don't do something unexpected. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to |
| 13 |
>> use GLEP 55. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Not understanding any of the politics involved, what are the technical |
| 17 |
> arguments against it? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I think the bulk of resistance has been due to its use of an infinite |
| 20 |
series of extensions, like .ebuild-5, .ebuild-6 and so on. GLEP 55 |
| 21 |
itself has since been amended to include a "one time extension change" |
| 22 |
option [1]. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
[1] |
| 25 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html#eapi-in-the-filename-with-one-time-extension-change |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Zac |
Archives