From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Le3ah-0007Xm-RE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:33:37 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0D79E01CB; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:33:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.tmcs.ch (113.245.131.213.static.inetbone.net [213.131.245.113]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BC4E01CB for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:33:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.168.195] (unknown [212.126.163.234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.tmcs.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 968FF16A3CE3 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:33:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives From: Tiziano =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=FCller?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20090302083100.6de00904@terra.solaris> References: <49A472E3.1010204@gentoo.org> <20090302083100.6de00904@terra.solaris> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-GYzLRmiZ6DDhXtOrry/4" Organization: Gentoo Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 09:33:25 +0100 Message-Id: <1235982805.6854.1.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 X-Archives-Salt: 53411748-87b2-4174-b7a5-ab73e938a636 X-Archives-Hash: 6e191f602e39be52b77639ba18e96bdf --=-GYzLRmiZ6DDhXtOrry/4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Montag, den 02.03.2009, 08:31 +0100 schrieb Christian Faulhammer: > Hi, >=20 > Petteri R=C3=A4ty : >=20 > > 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 :) >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > > 2) EAPI in file extension > > - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild > > a) .ebuild- > > - ignored by current Portage > > b) ..ebuild > > - current Portage does not work with this > > c) .. > > - ignored by current Portage >=20 > 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? =3D> .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. --=-GYzLRmiZ6DDhXtOrry/4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkmrmdUACgkQGwVqY66cHjCA+wCfaQE4vS3onxz9BxhDOXA4psP1 v6oAnj69a7DjLM8o8i4fI84MHgFctdvT =x1u2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-GYzLRmiZ6DDhXtOrry/4--