-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009, Steven J Long wrote: > >> I'd just like to know what the implications would be for users if we >> kept the .ebuild extension, and a new PMS were rolled out stating >> that the mangler were allowed to find the EAPI without sourcing (and >> giving the restrictions) once portage 2.2 was stable, or the ability >> to handle this backported to 2.1.6, and issued in a release? > > Even if we do only a one-time change of the file extension, can we > ever get rid of the old extension? unfortunately, no. > Or are we then stuck with two > extensions in the tree until the end of time? > Let's assume for the moment that we change from ".ebuild" to ".eb". better put this new ebuild type in a new tree; such a massive change to the tree its not recommended. > Then we obviously cannot change all ebuilds in the tree to ".eb", > otherwise old Portage versions would see an empty tree and there would > be no upgrade path. leaving actual ".ebuild"s as they are now (good healthy state :)) and making new development of ".eb" ebuilds happen in a new tree (I said new tree, but it could be any way that hides those new ebuild to OLD package managers) would help.
only newer versions of package managers are required to support this, that is they will look for .eb (in new or current tree, not sure what's best) and then for .ebuilds, and ideally this should be transparent to old package managers and allow an upgrade path. - -- mescali...@g.o -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkortVIACgkQV/B5axfzrPsTiACeJCJb3F8Up/+CjHIwC3Slhn/6 yZgAoLcJgNn2d3W/JeZPkK85arUPW9vV =fR4T -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
