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 1LbkW1-0005lz-Kz for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:47:13 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 95D62E0501; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:47:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net (vms173003pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.3]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE6EE0501 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:47:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([68.162.77.20]) by vms173003.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KFJ009F2M2K4LQ5@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:47:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075B41759D7B for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:47:07 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <49A3357B.1030403@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:47:07 -0500 From: Richard Freeman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090104) 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> <49A2C40D.3060601@gentoo.org> <20090223132202.1cd1337e@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> In-reply-to: <20090223132202.1cd1337e@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: d069752a-4707-436d-9752-441279883a17 X-Archives-Hash: b8e89df11ffd47f5228c1f87d25ba5fb Ryan Hill wrote: >> Richard Freeman wrote: >>> 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. > > $ ls /usr/lib I was referring to a file FORMAT versioning scheme - not a file CONTENT versioning scheme. The formats of all the files in /usr/lib are generally identical. Where they vary it has nothing to do with their filenames. The reason for the version in the filenames is that the content is versioned. The dynamic linker doesn't need to consult the filename to figure out how to parse a shared object. It only consults the filename to figure out which shared object is needed. That is actually analogous to putting the package name/version in the ebuild filename. In any case, I'm not trying to say that these issues absolutely prevent the adoption of GLEP 55. It just leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and keeps nagging at me that there must be a better way. I'd rather see the number of filename variations be kept to a minimum. Sure, if we were talking about a one-time change from ebuild to ebuild2 and in five years a change to ebuild3 then that would be one thing. It seems like we could be up to ebuild-kde4-3.2 in six months. And I don't mean to suggest that I don't think that efforts would be made to keep things sensible. It just seems like once we start down that road it will be hard to turn around if we don't like where we end up.