Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:37:01 +0100 > Thomas Pani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As cat/pkg-ver ultimately is ONE file in the filesystem, there's no >> reason to put any information about the EAPI in the filename. > > Sure there is. It's the sanest place to put it such that it's available > when it's needed -- that is, before the ebuild is sourced. > >> I still don't get why EAPI=xxx is soooo bad. Obviously the GLEP (and >> the last 500 comments lack to explain that. Ebuilds are bash. >> EAPI=xxx is bash syntax. > > Uh, I've explained it far too many times in this thread already. Go > back and read. Don't post again until you understand it. > I DO understand. You say that explicitly having EAPI=xxx in the first non-comment line / in the ebuild header / whereever imposes restrictions on the ebuild format itself that go beyond "it has to be bash". That's right.
But you're totally ignoring my point. So once again: You're trying to *SET* a standard here. There are lots of people telling you that they're not happy with the proposal to change the ebuild filename suffix. There seem to be less people opposed to having that ebuild format restriction. So either choose the one that's accepted by the majority (and I'm not saying that EAPI=xxx is the one; I'm saying that we'll have to figure that out), or think of something completely new. Thomas Pani -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
