Wulf C. Krueger wrote: >> I DO understand. > > You don't. The complete paragraph of yours shows you don't. > Interesting, because my statement is the same (in meaning) that Ciaran made two days ago. He stated it was "[...] another option. It's considered less ideal [...]" ([1], in case you want to look it up) >> But you're totally ignoring my point. So once again: You're trying to >> *SET* a standard here. There are lots of people telling you that they're >> not happy with the proposal to change the ebuild filename suffix. > > Yes, indeed. They're not happy with it. That's about all most > participants here have stated so far. There are two or three valid > *technical* concerns and all the rest is basically noise. > My concern is technical: Filenames are for identifying files uniquely. An ebuild is uniquely identified by <cat>/<pn>-<pv>, so that's what it's filename should be. Adding anything else to the filename will only clutter the tree and lead to additional inconsitencies. Yes, you can check for these using QA tools. But if it's not in the filename you don't have to check. If you say that package managers need the EAPI info so early that they can't even read the first non-comment line of an ebuild that's fine. Go and place it in the filename. But nobody had a *technical* argument why that's the only possible solution so far. All I got was "you don't understand all that fancy PM stuff". >> There seem to be less people opposed to having that ebuild format >> restriction. > > If this was only about the ebuild format restriction, I wouldn't even > bother to write a single mail on this subject. It's much more important > than that - the suggested GLEP would allow us to make use of new EAPI > features much earlier than now and without causing major problems, I think. > > Just this morning when I was reading my backlog in #-dev, I saw a > discussion between between two devs that culminated in the following: > > a> "So we can make use of this feature in about a year?" > b> "Yeah." > > Are we Debian now? A new feature gets implemented (obviously because we > *need* it) and we can make use of it in a *year*? > No, we're not Debian, thank god. I thought the "wait 1+ year" policy changed? Again citing Ciaran: "That was only the case because previously, using new features that Portage didn't support would cause horrible breakage. Now, instead, the ebuilds show up as being masked." [2]
Regards, thomas [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_149455.xml [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_149031.xml -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
