>>>>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > If we want to keep .ebuild but avoid the compat issue another > variant would be "EAPI in header comment and one-time change of > ebuild location" or more formal:
> 6 EAPI in header comment and one-time change of ebuild location: > - add a directory $CATEGORY/$PN/ebuilds to ebuild repositories. > - all files in $CATEGORY/$PN/ebuilds are ebuilds and are using a > well defined first line to denote the EAPI. > - For practical reasons the header should be a bash comment. PMs > shouldn't have to remove or skip first line from file for further > processing of ebuilds supporting bash comments. > - the .ebuild extension can be kept but could be changed if ever > desired. This due to the filename only having meaning if the > EAPI of the file is known. Similar ideas have been discussed before, in 2007 and 2009: <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_fe3f0b9d050ead86aed9b42ce7ec93b0.xml> <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2e41942be33d8595cf7152aa91417fbe.xml> > Comparing this with GLEP 55 then this allows us to keep .ebuild in > return of some overhead with roughly the same pros and cons > otherwise, right? >From a technical point of view, it's the same pros and cons. There are however non-technical aspects for all these propositions. For example, we would have to live with ebuilds in different directories for a long transition period (as we would have to live with two file extensions for a long time if we changed that). Ulrich
