| 1 |
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> glep55: See GLEP55. To summarize: The eapi is put into the file name so |
| 5 |
> that the package manager knows the EAPI (and thus how to handle this file |
| 6 |
> format). While it simplifies the eapi discovery this comes at a high price |
| 7 |
> as there is no reliable way to find and validate all ebuilds. It also |
| 8 |
> enforces some minor limitations, for example EAPI needs to be unique and |
| 9 |
> cannot be overridden by eclasses. Some people also see it as bad design as |
| 10 |
> it exposes file internals in the filename. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Okay, this has been bothering me....sorry if this is a sort of silly |
| 14 |
question, but why not just use the (already extant) metadata.xml for |
| 15 |
the...err, metadata about a package? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
In any case, I'm strongly opposed to the idea of encoding any more metadata |
| 18 |
into the filename than is strictly necessary to uniquely identify the file. |
| 19 |
As both a software developer and a user, please do not do this. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Regards, |
| 22 |
Wyatt |
Archives