On 03/09/12 13:02, James Broadhead wrote: > On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.com> wrote: >> At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a >> different name. > > I think that moving the data to the filename is probably a better > approach than semi- or repeat parsing, but I prefer preserving the > .ebuild extension, and think that eapi should be specified similarly > to ebuild revision, as a suffix. for instance: > > app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1.ebuild # EAPI0 (or the highest EAPI prior to the > new schema) > app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1-e1.ebuild > app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1-e99.ebuild >
One of the benefits of GLEP 55 naming is that old package managers won't try to parse them. So, for example, if we put new features in, app-foo/bar-1.0.0.ebuild-5 portage from 2003 won't try to source it.
