From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J66Hz-0005Kn-Dq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:29:23 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lBMFQMv1012746; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:26:22 GMT Received: from caine.easynet.fr (smarthost151.mail.easynet.fr [212.180.1.151]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBMFNfQW008975 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:23:41 GMT Received: from easyconnect2121138-64.clients.easynet.fr ([212.11.38.64] helo=eusebe) by caine.easynet.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1J66CT-0000J6-7G for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:23:41 +0100 Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:23:13 +0100 From: Thomas de Grenier de Latour To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) Message-ID: <20071222162313.01928ad2@eusebe> In-Reply-To: <20071222124547.27193d4e@blueyonder.co.uk> References: <200712172320.01988.peper@gentoo.org> <20071221040215.481ea7e0@blueyonder.co.uk> <476B401C.3000008@gentoo.org> <200712211631.13264.bo.andresen@zlin.dk> <476CCF39.3080708@gentoo.org> <20071222091106.3df3faed@blueyonder.co.uk> <476CDEAC.1010001@runbox.com> <20071222124547.27193d4e@blueyonder.co.uk> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.1.0 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 65ec39c3-3542-4458-978c-5b6a87b5aec6 X-Archives-Hash: 52f6f0e1b008f28caa66519238a648a6 On 2007/12/22, Ciaran McCreesh 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