On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:53:48 +0000 Simon Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As one of those 'users' (an AT actually), I would find having the eapi > in the filename quite annoying - especially having several ebuilds in > the tree that differ _only_ in their eapi number (and doing different > things). It just Seems Wrong
Which is why the GLEP disallows it... > Filenames are generally quite mutable - changing the filename is just > a single 'mv', whereas if you need to edit the file to change the type > that generally requires more effort, you need to think more about what > you're doing, and so theres less chance to break stuff (a eapi-1 file > accidentally gets moved to eapi-2, lots of stuff breaks, whereas if > its in the file you notice you need to edit it to actually make it > eapi-2 compliant) I suggest you try using gcc to compile a C++ file with a .c file extension... > And please, please, don't base the decision on who can shout loudest > or longest. Think through each option (filename, inside file, > metadata, Manifest, directories, seperate db, ...) logically, weigh > the pros and cons, and decide on the one that would best fit gentoo > on technical grounds, not just on the one backed by the most vocal > people. If you make the wrong decision it could seriously screw > gentoo over and make it very painful in the future Oh, we did all that long before the GLEP was written. The filename solution is by far the best -- it's the only one that hasn't had any technical objections raised to it. -- Ciaran McCreesh -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
