Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

[Tobias Klausmann <klausman@gentoo.org>]

Hi! 

On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Tobias Klausmann <klausman@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Yes, those. The current rules include some pointless arbitrary
> > > restrictions that are only there for historical reasons and that
> > > mean people have to mess with convoluted MY_PV things.
> > 
> > Still: a sane spec for those plus a sane spec for inside-the-file
> > EAPI specs can be done with/during *one* extension change. 
> 
> GLEP 55's just one extension change: it moves from .ebuild
> to .ebuild-EAPI.

So we're not talking about .ebuild-2 for EAPI=2, .ebuild-3 for
EAPI=3 etc? That would just be silly and it was the first idea I
got when I saw the proposal.

Also, I think there might be better options for the new
extensions (.gbuild?, just a random idea).

Aside from that, one idea that came to me recently was to specify
per tree what kind of files (version-format-wise, EAPI
elsewhere[0]) a PM has to expect. Tree distributors (Gentoo
itself, other similar distros, overlays... ) would be Providing
that information along a similar route as profiles/repo_name.
This would also reduce the amount of mixing and matching version
formats (something undesirable, if you ask me). It would also
make it easier to take a look at historical (snapshots of)
repositories.

[0] I see EAPI specification and version-format spec as separate
issues.

> > Any further features that mandate a change in filename format?
> > Pile them on. 
> 
> There probably will be, and we don't know what they all are yet.
> Unfortunately we can't see the future.

I meant further as in "not discussed yet".

Regards,
Tobias
-- 
Found on a small utility knife in MIT's lab supply:
"Caution.  Blade is sharp.  Keep out of children."