From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LbcxR-0005Bx-OG for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:43:01 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A56E9E02D3; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:43:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from QMTA07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.64]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5840EE02D3 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:43:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from OMTA04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.35]) by QMTA07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id KTJt1b00B0lTkoCA7Tj07p; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:43:00 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([24.10.189.221]) by OMTA04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id KTiz1b00f4n2w0Q8QTj0jL; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:43:00 +0000 Message-ID: <49A2C40D.3060601@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:43:09 -0700 From: Steve Dibb User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090111) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> <1235378286.31617.6.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A26B84.7040006@gentoo.org> <1235383347.12908.0.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A2B276.1000109@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <49A2B276.1000109@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 1fe32de6-cff1-4498-aca3-c2820709e397 X-Archives-Hash: a9c2e1623747441d756555e94fa79369 Richard Freeman wrote: > I still don't see why we need to be encoding metadata in filenames. PERL > doesn't care what a file extension is, python doesn't care, bzip2 > doesn't care, tar doesn't care, gzip doesn't care, and even ld-linux.so > doesn't care. I'm sure that in at least some of these cases they end up > parsing parts of the file twice - once to figure out what it is, and the > second time to actually handle it. I'm actually hard pressed to think > of any unix-based software that uses the filename to store a mandatory > file format versioning specifier of some kind. I have to admit I'm in the same camp with Richard, and don't understand the necessity. I'm also opposed to creating arbitrary suffixes to the ebuild extension, for cosmetic and compatibility reasons. Plus, I don't really grasp the whole "we have to source the whole ebuild to know the EAPI version" argument. It's one variable, in one line. Can't a simple parser get that and go from there? Steve