Tiziano Müller wrote:
What is proposed in glep-55 seems to aim to solve both issues at the
same time (it isn't stated) by switching file extension every time the
eapi is changed. This is slightly against the principle of the least
surprise and apparently is disliked by enough people to lead the
situation to be discussed in the council.
Instead of switching file extension every time the eapi is changed you
could also increment it only when a new EAPI breaks sourcing the ebuild
compared to the requirements of the prior EAPI.
(This way you'd in fact split EAPI into a major- and a minor-version.)
Makes you getting to have to do the two stage source again AND you get
another non obvious condition "Should I bump the eapi internally or the
filename?"
The main point again what is proposed in glep-55 is it that isn't
invasive and non-transparent to users and developers.
As stated in the analysis, the user side is already covered by the fact
users use the cache, the developer side would require a two stage
sourcing when committing to remain transparent.
What we need to balance is if the invasive proposal is simpler than
having a two stage sourcing done.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
