В Срд, 11/06/2008 в 08:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: > 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
That's why I suggested to change .ebuild extension or fix package manager now and wait another year to start using such syntax. Your answer about extension change > It means next time we want to introduce another backward incompatible > change, we have to go through the whole mess all over again. is not clear. What changes you have in mind? If we already have pkg, eapi and version in filename what else are you going to add there? > b) has no unambiguous parsing Why? For example, just add word eapi and that it: pkg-1.2.3-eapi-1.bld. That's just an example to show that this is possible. > 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... Well for me .ebuild-eapi is much more confusing. I still don't see why it's impossible to have eapi as a part of name but not in extension... -- Peter. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
