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 1J55Bt-0007o8-A2 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:06:53 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lBJK5rPZ003999; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:05:53 GMT Received: from shadow.wildlava.net (shadow.wildlava.net [67.40.138.81]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBJK2rvN000316 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:02:54 GMT Received: from [10.0.3.98] (mail.boulder.swri.edu [65.241.78.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shadow.wildlava.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ADC68F407 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:02:52 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4769790A.2000401@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:03:22 -0700 From: Joe Peterson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071119) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) References: <200712172320.01988.peper@gentoo.org> <47671006.2020808@gentoo.org> <20071218001855.78c1864c@blueyonder.co.uk> <20071218013651.58f4f565@eusebe> <20071218172143.GB4423@ferdyx.org> <20071219102951.515beeca@blueyonder.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 1c17c032-8088-4a19-a5f5-576efcf9d90f X-Archives-Hash: bf10b2b9d9d94e8d4b56d7bdadcf2c5d Steve Long wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> There is no duplication of information, nor redundancy. >> > So what were the QA checks you mentioned to confirm that the same EAPI is > set in both the filename and the ebuild, for-- if not integrity of > duplicated data? +1 >> Really. It's a heck of a lot cleaner in the filename suffix. >> > Nah, it's an awful hack and you know it. It has nothing to do with package > naming and is unnecessary exposure of internal data. Yes! Thank you, Steve! -Joe -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list