Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 24/11/2012 07:46, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > For ruby19, split in the middle to get 1.9, but what about 110, is it > > 11.0 or 1.10. > > Okay stop. > > There's no 1.10. > > There's 2.0 that's being developed for a long time. > > And we're not going to change our scheme just because of some > theoretical corner case
Diego, remember the original point. It is obvious that a common syntax is more coherent and thus easier for the world to understand. Having that would be a good thing. It is also obvious that the ruby syntax is problematic in the general case. > Especially since we were the first Who cares? I sure don't. For my systems I don't even care that the various languages use different syntax, but for Gentoo as a whole I care a lot more. Coherency creates a more professional impression than incoherency, which helps Gentoo to be taken more seriously by more individuals. NIH bikeshedding - not so much. Thise fierce syntax revolution could be taken one step further though - although it might require a larger change. Look at the following: PHP_TARGETS="php5-3" RUBY_TARGETS="ruby19" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7" Note the redundancy, which I'm not quite sure why we have at all.. Why not also eliminate the language name in one of the two places; either in the variable name, or in the target name? I think this looks rather pleasant, because it is quite obvious: PHP_TARGETS="5.3 5.4" RUBY_TARGETS="1.9" PYTHON_TARGETS="2.7" But maybe it would be too problematic? The point of weak separation between package name and version was made. "python2_7" and "ruby19" are both valid package names. If this is going to change now to become coherent (I think that would be good for Gentoo, even if it is a small thing) then may as well try to take that redundancy out. //Peter
pgp0xXBFQOCL4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
