Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@easyconnect.fr>]

On 2007/12/22, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> The filename solution is by far the best -- it's the only one that
> hasn't had any technical objections raised to it.

And can you remind us what technical objection, if any, has been raised
against the "EAPI set in contents with enough syntaxic restrictions to
allow its extraction without sourcing, and the files names extension
changing only if this rules have to change" alternative?

It's a bit annoying to see EAPI-in-contents solutions bashed everywhere
in this thread under the pretext of backward or forward compatibility,
whereas this points has been adressed very early in the discussion.

So, once more to make it clear: yes, the current ".ebuild" extension
would have to change into ".something" if we want to introduce such a
solution without waiting N months.  The difference with ".ebuild-$EAPI"
being that ".something" would then stay unchanged for numerous later
EAPIs (until some unlikely conditions are met, like a switch away from
Bash format).

-- 
TGL.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list