On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:41:02 +0200
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński kirjoitti:
> > This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for
> > ebuilds (for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
> 
> It seems many people don't like the idea of having it in the filename
> but how about having subdirectories for different eapis. This should
> even be faster for the package manager as it can just ignore the
> directories it can't understand instead of having to parse the file
> names.
> 
> example:
> 
> ${PORTDIR}/<category>/<pkg>/eapiX/

In terms of what it does and doesn't allow, this one's equivalent. But
it has some new disadvantages:

* It's several more directory reads. This is a measurable performance
hit on something that's already i/o bound.

* It's harder to work with for developers. Ebuilds are no longer all in
the same place, and it's harder to see what you're working with.

On a subjective niceness scale, I'd suspect that the file extension is
less unnice.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to