On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:57:04 +1300 Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled > > xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality > > since such a beast is clearly a seperate format (thus trying to call > > it an 'ebuild' is dumb, confusing, and counter productive). > > > I think this notion should be concluded before we continue debating as > to how best to implement EAPI declarations. > > Is it really so fixed that ".ebuild" will only ever be bash ? > > If thats the case, then G55 ( or something similar ) is practically > guaranteed as soon as we want something non-bash. Maybe instead of per-EAPI suffix change, we'd want to prepend the suffix with something special whenever the actual format changes. In other words, if EAPI 15 introduces XML-based syntax, we start using .xml.ebuild. If EAPI 7 introduces bash4 in global scope (still don't see much reason for it), we use .bash4.ebuild. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
