Santiago M. Mola wrote:
>> One example was mentioned in this thread before: You cannot use
>> "find -name '*.ebuild'" anymore.
>>
>
> So people could use a bit more elaborated expression to find them.
> Things like this shouldn't be a reason for not applying
> EAPI/GLEPs/PM-behaviour changes. If this GLEP is approved, it would be
> fine to publish a quick guide of recipes to migrate scripts which rely
> on the old naming convention and that should be enough.
>
> IMO, keeping us away from improvements to Gentoo because they break
> backwards compatibility with third party scripts is a no-go. Of
> course, this kind of changes can't happen once a month, but they can
> happen from time to time.
I don't think this is about strictly maintaining backwards
compatability. You are right that we should not let this impede
progress. My objection is that the proposed scheme does not appear to
make the system more elegant, but rather it creates complexity,
potential errors (mismatches in representions of EAPI), and introduces a
rather unorthodox and complicated file extension pattern.
I also do not see why there are not other more elegant, transparent, and
automatic ways to determine EAPI without sourcing. I put forth an idea,
and I understand the objections to it, but I'm just brainstorming, and
there *must* be other ways that retain portage's elegance and simplicity.
-Joe
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
