On Dec 18, 2007 6:37 PM, Ulrich Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Fernando J Pereda wrote: > > >> > It seems to me that this will inconvenience the users, in order to > >> > solve a technical problem of the package manager. > >> > >> Absolutely, +1. This does indeed sound like a technical issue; how > >> would requiring a dev to manually mirror the EAPI in the filename > >> extension provide any benefit over caching it behind the scenes (using > >> the Manifest file or similar mechanism)? > > > You are yet to show what kind of inconvenience to the users this > > proposal will cause. > > One example was mentioned in this thread before: You cannot use > "find -name '*.ebuild'" anymore. >
So people could use a bit more elaborated expression to find them. Things like this shouldn't be a reason for not applying EAPI/GLEPs/PM-behaviour changes. If this GLEP is approved, it would be fine to publish a quick guide of recipes to migrate scripts which rely on the old naming convention and that should be enough. IMO, keeping us away from improvements to Gentoo because they break backwards compatibility with third party scripts is a no-go. Of course, this kind of changes can't happen once a month, but they can happen from time to time. Regards, Santiago -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
