"Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why not just bump the filename suffix when it is required to > > support a new EAPI that breaks the sourcing rules of previous EAPIs? > > > > Or will backwards-incompatible changes be happening so frequently > > that the package suffix will have to change for every EAPI bump > > anyway, which would make this proposal equivalent to GLEP55? > > That works. Although, we'd have to keep track of two parameters when > setting our EAPI. One being the EAPI itself and the suffix needed for > that EAPI. So this doesn't seem to make the problem simpler.
I agree that it doesn't make things simpler. Though it doesn't make things that much more complex. That said, I'm becoming more convinced that a lot of the changes that really need to be made will indeed break EAPI sourcing rules, so maybe the latter part of my original quote above will indeed be the case - This would be equivalent to GLEP55. I should add that I am not personally opposed to having the EAPI in the filename, but this may find slightly more acceptance from the folks who think that solution is incorrect. -- Jim Ramsay Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
