Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

[Mike Auty <ikelos@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Petteri Räty wrote:
> 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild
>   c) .ebuild in current directory
>   - needs one year wait

I'm all for 1 or 3c, because we're not in any rush.

I don't see why there's such an immediate need to make as drastic
changes as are being suggested for GLEP-55, simply to allow for the
possibility of future unknown ebuild mechanisms (like ebuilds not being
bash scripts).  If ebuilds change significantly from their current form,
then and only then, would it be a good time to change the ebuild suffixes.

I don't want to get an attachment from bugzilla and find I have to try
four different file extensions because whilst the package and version
were obvious from the bug, the eapi number wasn't.

I also don't want to run into a situation where this package manager
supports kdebuilds, whilst that package manager supports gnomebuilds,
and a third one supports xfcebuilds.  That's just recreating the browser
wars, and will leave us with the likes of IE6.

I'd be relatively happy with a shebang that specifies the parser or
passes the ebuild version, as long as it was standardized, linear and
supported by all the PMs (ie, some rogue PM can't suddenly start
allowing a "myeapi" that only it can build)...

Mike  5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmlKQEACgkQu7rWomwgFXoRFACdHfDHuHhj7ojsQV5FvF+rRpRT
PgQAoKTq6iAmNLC50a97JHrQghRZK6O0
=ELuP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----