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 1Lc0Gq-0001dd-Ej for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:36:37 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 96D1BE0444; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77755E0444 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [67.40.138.82] (crater.wildlava.net [67.40.138.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A536564C44 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <49A4220D.9020105@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:36:29 -0700 From: Joe Peterson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090110) 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> <49A3357B.1030403@gentoo.org> <49A41F50.2060500@gentoo.org> <20090224162954.3661db53@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20090224162954.3661db53@snowcone> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5c78396b-9104-4fdb-b7af-7076b1e7afa3 X-Archives-Hash: 32e27b712cf357b79a45e0815ae253e1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:24:48 -0700 > Joe Peterson wrote: >> Right. Plus, if the linker *did* consult the filename, imagine what >> would happen if someone renamed the file (even by accident) and >> changed the version? The parser should not be able to be so easily >> fooled - could cause great confusion and or nasty and weird bugs - >> seems very fragile to me. Having the version *in* the file is much >> safer, since monkeying with that would require editing it the file, >> rather than renaming it. > > You could use the same absurd argument to say that PN and PV shouldn't > be in the filename... No...! They are needed because: 1) versions of the *content*, not the *format* are needed for uniqueness 2) it makes sense to have these in the filename, but not internal meta-data