Am Montag, den 02.03.2009, 08:31 +0100 schrieb Christian Faulhammer: > Hi, > > Petteri Räty <betelge...@gentoo.org>: > > > Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many > > people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order > > to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is > > only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it > > easy to read through. The existing thread should be used for actual > > discussion about the GLEP and the alternatives. This should be a > > useful experiment to see if we can control ourselves :) > > Thanks. > > > 2) EAPI in file extension > > - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild > > a) .ebuild-<eapi> > > - ignored by current Portage > > b) .<eapi>.ebuild > > - current Portage does not work with this > > c) .<eapi>.<new extension> > > - ignored by current Portage > > All of them are ugly as hell. Though a) has my preference because of > the added flexibility. Can we use cool names instead of numbers as > eapi or omit the dash? => .ebuild3 or .ebuild-upyours
Should be possible I guess. The EAPI used in the tree must be a number (according to PMS). External projects or overlays may/must use a name instead.
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
