Hi! On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Tobias Klausmann <klaus...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Yes, those. The current rules include some pointless arbitrary > > > restrictions that are only there for historical reasons and that > > > mean people have to mess with convoluted MY_PV things. > > > > Still: a sane spec for those plus a sane spec for inside-the-file > > EAPI specs can be done with/during *one* extension change. > > GLEP 55's just one extension change: it moves from .ebuild > to .ebuild-EAPI.
So we're not talking about .ebuild-2 for EAPI=2, .ebuild-3 for EAPI=3 etc? That would just be silly and it was the first idea I got when I saw the proposal. Also, I think there might be better options for the new extensions (.gbuild?, just a random idea). Aside from that, one idea that came to me recently was to specify per tree what kind of files (version-format-wise, EAPI elsewhere[0]) a PM has to expect. Tree distributors (Gentoo itself, other similar distros, overlays... ) would be Providing that information along a similar route as profiles/repo_name. This would also reduce the amount of mixing and matching version formats (something undesirable, if you ask me). It would also make it easier to take a look at historical (snapshots of) repositories. [0] I see EAPI specification and version-format spec as separate issues. > > Any further features that mandate a change in filename format? > > Pile them on. > > There probably will be, and we don't know what they all are yet. > Unfortunately we can't see the future. I meant further as in "not discussed yet". Regards, Tobias -- Found on a small utility knife in MIT's lab supply: "Caution. Blade is sharp. Keep out of children."
