On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> <!-- EAPI="3" --> > > *Then* would be the time to change the extension. As long as the > ebuild is bash-parseable with an appropriate environment, it doesn't > make sense to change the extension because a env-variable set or a > comment are more natural methods. > > If/when the format changes to something not parseable by bash, then it > will be time to change the extension. And then how to mark > (sub-)version will depend on the chosen new format, in case of xml > that would be the dtd information. > > I suspect the rejection of the extension change will be there as long > as the fundamental format (bash script) doesn't change. >
If the extension was based on the fact that ebuilds are bash scripts, they'd have .bash extension. The .ebuild extension means a specific kind of bash script and it doesn't seem wrong to change the extension if that "specific kind" changes, even if bash is still the interpreter. Even if we switched to sh or zsh I doubt we'd use the .sh or .zsh extension. Regards, -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
