Peter Volkov wrote:
> 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...
Although putting EAPI in the name and not the extension is *slightly*
preferable to using the extension, I still do not think that it even
belongs there for one main design-based reason:
It does not have to be there from a design perspective.
All other filename components (name-version-revision.ebuild) uniquely
identify the ebuild. EAPI does not (it is meta-information only needed
internally by the package manager or by someone interpretting the
contents of the file). You could not have two ebuilds, for example,
that have identical name/version/revision but different EAPIs - that
would not make sense (and yet it would be possible if the EAPI were in
the filename, causing the package manager to need rules for choosing the
right ebuild to look at).
The argument for putting the EAPI in the extension or filename is simply
to address a particular technical implementation detail, and there are
other, better, ways to solve the problem in my opinion.
I would argue that GLEP 54 is also putting needless extra stuff in the
filename, but we won't go there right now. :)
-Joe
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
