From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M5Y6M-00075y-8P for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 17 May 2009 04:35:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 99134E01F1; Sun, 17 May 2009 04:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms173017pub.verizon.net (vms173017pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.17]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80238E01F1 for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 04:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([68.162.77.227]) by vms173017.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KJR00FH9U3JYU7W@vms173017.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 16 May 2009 23:35:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3055B1759C56 for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 00:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-id: <4A0F941F.7000207@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 00:35:43 -0400 From: Richard Freeman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090321) 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] The fallacies of GLEP55 References: <20090514225337.34df7dac@snowcone> <20090515194329.GA16382@linux1> <20090515204905.54aa6a5c@snowmobile> <20090516092710.GA3221@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <20090516151216.15efc792@snowmobile> <20090516153224.GA4964@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <20090516163421.32935cbc@snowmobile> <20090516154332.GA6646@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <20090516164903.261df865@snowmobile> <1242491708.7309.3.camel@peripatetic.hades> <20090516163908.GB11144@dodo.hsd1.nj.comcast.net> <1242492270.7309.6.camel@peripatetic.hades> <20090516174730.1d7dd5b7@snowmobile> <1242492844.7309.9.camel@peripatetic.hades> <20090516175931.7756060d@snowmobile> <1242493786.7309.17.camel@peripatetic.hades> <20090516185508.0fd02f0e@snowmobile> <4A0F4EBC.5020706@gmail.com> <4A0F5AD4.8030808@p-static.net> In-reply-to: <4A0F5AD4.8030808@p-static.net> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0303976e-04e1-4a84-8413-14a7b348052d X-Archives-Hash: 8c06cf63995fc9fbeae82bf509929f5d Ravi Pinjala wrote: > Nick Fortino wrote: >> Such a transformation is possible, given the restrictions on arg, as >> well as ebuild format. > > Isn't this a bit circular? The whole point of wanting to change the > extension is to get rid of exactly these restrictions; if you assume the > restrictions, then the whole thing is kind of pointless. :) > What restrictions? The restriction that EAPI be fixed on the 5th line of the build, or the restriction that EAPI be fixed in the filename. I don't really see much difference between them. What can the one do that the other can't. The only thing that has been suggested is changing the package versioning scheme. That is handled in a straightforward way - parse the EAPI before you try to extract the version from the filename. Sure, that isn't compatible with older versions of portage, but if we start now I'm sure we can get there in the reasonably near future. Personally, I'm not a fan of parsing ANYTHING out of the filename. Sure, keep the file naming convention for the sake of convenience, but I think a better design would be to field everything inside the file - including category, packagename, and version. Then you no longer have to worry about whether a given hyphen is a separator or part of one of the components (among other things). Sure, you can't just bump an ebuild by renaming it, but if we had been doing it this way all along then the versioning issue we're debating now would be a non-issue.