On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:25:50 +0400 Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you need eapi in file name what are the technical reasons of > putting it into file name extension? Why don't you suggest better > ebuild name like: > > pkg-ver-eapi.ebuild or pkg-eapi-ver.ebuild ?
a) breaks current package managers b) has no unambiguous parsing c) looks confusing. pkg-1.2.3-1.ebuild or pkg-1-1.2.3.ebuild look a lot like Debian-style foo-1.2-3 versions... > I remember last time I've asked this genone told me that this is not > backward compatible. Ok, it's not, but what's the problem to change > extension once only for this change? It means next time we want to introduce another backward incompatible change, we have to go through the whole mess all over again. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
