Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

["Tiziano Müller" <dev-zero@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1330 bytes --]

Am Montag, den 02.03.2009, 08:31 +0100 schrieb Christian Faulhammer:
> Hi,
> 
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>:
> 
> > Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many
> > people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order
> > to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is
> > only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it
> > easy to read through. The existing thread should be used for actual
> > discussion about the GLEP and the alternatives. This should be a
> > useful experiment to see if we can control ourselves :)
> 
>  Thanks.
> 
> > 2) EAPI in file extension
> >   - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild
> >   a) .ebuild-<eapi>
> >     - ignored by current Portage
> >   b) .<eapi>.ebuild
> >     - current Portage does not work with this
> >   c) .<eapi>.<new extension>
> >     - ignored by current Portage
> 
>  All of them are ugly as hell.  Though a) has my preference because of
> the added flexibility.  Can we use cool names instead of numbers as
> eapi or omit the dash? => .ebuild3 or .ebuild-upyours

Should be possible I guess.
The EAPI used in the tree must be a number (according to PMS). External
projects or overlays may/must use a name instead.


[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]