Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash

[Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com>]

On 13 March 2012 06:53, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> There are very good reasons not to embed this information in the
> filename. That it makes the filename harder to parse for the human eye
> and more difficult to type is one of them.
>
> Besides, we already have a council decision about that GLEP.

Difficulty in typing them is not really much of an argument,
considering the present complexity with file-names already having
versions encoded in them.

And difficulty reading them isn't much of an argument really either.

But difficulty identifying the format systematically seems a
reasonable enough objection, and for this, I can see the translation
of

abz-123.ebuild-5  to  ->  abz-123.eapi5.eb

Being a more practical change ( or something of that nature ).

At least that way, its easier to have a way to find "all ebuilds"
without needing extension permutation.

Another thought: Presently we have versions encoded in the file name.
If we ever decide we need to change our versioning syntax or
versioning semantics, we might be up the creek without a paddle, and
EAPI being *in* the file will probably make that harder, and I'd
probably prefer some sort of out-of-band location for EAPI in that
situation too.

-- 
Kent

perl -e  "print substr( \"edrgmaM  SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3,
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"