On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:56:01 -0500 Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Because a) a future EAPI might want to change EAPI into a function > > rather than a variable, > > Why? It couldn't be dynamic - not if you're going to put it in the > filename as well. And why have it in two places? If you are going to > put the EAPI in the filename, why put it inside the ebuild as well? > We don't do that with version numbers or package names.
eapi 3 Is considered by some to look nicer than EAPI="3" > > b) there are a zillion ways of setting a > > variable in bash and people already use all of them and c) > > introducing new weird format requirements is silly. > > But this GLEP is already proposing a format requirement. It is just > putting it in the filename instead of in the ebuild contents. It > isn't like you could just put anything in the filename anywhere you > want and the package manager will be able to understand it. If devs > are going to have to get correct "-1" at the end of the filename, why > couldn't they also get right "EAPI=1" inside the file? Because in the future we might want to have something other than setting EAPIs by EAPI=1. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
