| 1 |
Rémi Cardona wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : |
| 3 |
>> Kills the upgrade path completely. No good. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Lemme sum this up in layman's terms : |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> 1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to |
| 8 |
> avoid that for various reasons, all 100% valid. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> 2) Putting the EAPI in the filename : |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> + it solves 1) |
| 13 |
> + it keeps backward compatibility because old PM won't recognize the |
| 14 |
> filenames |
| 15 |
> - it's not very "pretty" |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'd say the problems go way beyond just being not pretty. That longish |
| 18 |
email I wrote yesterday has a bunch of reasons I don't like it. And |
| 19 |
"pretty" makes the issue sound unimportant or superficial. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> 3) Putting the EAPI in metadata.xml or in another external file |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> + it solves 1) |
| 24 |
> + it keeps pretty file names |
| 25 |
> - it breaks backwards compatibility |
| 26 |
> - (specific to metadata.xml) PM will have to learn to read XML (yuck) |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> That's about it, right? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Good summary, except I think we can find ways to deal with compatibility |
| 31 |
(several ideas have been put forth already: giving time for PM to be |
| 32 |
upgraded, or a one-time tree or extension bump - and I'm sure there are |
| 33 |
even better ones yet to be discussed). I do not believe that the |
| 34 |
filename mangling solution is the "one and only way" as some people are |
| 35 |
insisting. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Also, I'm not sure reading XML is a problem at all - python has good |
| 38 |
libs for this already. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-Joe |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives