Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

[Thomas Anderson <gentoofan23@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1156 bytes --]

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:35:43AM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> Ravi Pinjala wrote:
>> Nick Fortino wrote:
>>> Such a transformation is possible, given the restrictions on arg, as
>>> well as ebuild format.
>> Isn't this a bit circular? The whole point of wanting to change the
>> extension is to get rid of exactly these restrictions; if you assume the
>> restrictions, then the whole thing is kind of pointless. :)
>
> What restrictions?  The restriction that EAPI be fixed on the 5th line of 
> the build, or the restriction that EAPI be fixed in the filename.  I don't 
> really see much difference between them.  What can the one do that the 
> other can't.

The difference is that putting the EAPI in the filename has backwards
compatibility because package managers not knowing about this change
won't even look at the those ebuilds. Putting EAPI as the fifth line
completely loses this, so as far as backwards compatibility goes putting
EAPI 55 in the filename really is the cleanest.

-- 
---------
Thomas Anderson
Gentoo Developer
/////////
Areas of responsibility:
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council
---------

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