On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:09:33 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:46:06 +0100 > Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The issue is with comparison rules. For the current use case that's > > not an issue as it's simply a superset, so we could just use the new > > rules for everything. But if the rules are changed in an incompatible > > way, which rules would be used to compare version(EAPI_X) with > > version(EAPI_Y)? > > You pretty much have to have a way of mapping an EAPI version onto an > absolute version if you want to handle it sanely. Right, and that's likely to cause a mess in the long run IMO. > > > Ditto for naming rules. > > > > Those are even more of an issue, as they apply before we know the > > eventual EAPI (need to access the category/package directory before > > you can parse the ebuild filename) > > Mmm, no. You have some concept of a superset of all supported naming > rules, then refine once you've extracted the EAPI. Assuming the current package manager supports all used EAPIs, otherwise a formerly invalid name could still break it. Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
