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

[Christian Faulhammer <fauli@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1315 bytes --]

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

> 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild

 No, you never know when you need the flexibility.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]