On 2007/12/19, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:12:24 +0100 > Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You're done as long as ebuilds are written in bash. > > Not even that. What if people decide that rather than writing > EAPI="blah", "eapi blah" is cleaner?
Yeah, and file names suffixes won't work anymore as soon as it has arbitrarily been decided that prefixes should be used instead, or that EAPI must disappear because using explicit sets of named features is better than using names of some particular sets. That rules only holds as long as they don't change is not an argument, but a truism. > What if metadata is moved out of the ebuild, as some people started > doing years ago? Which metadata's, the ones from the file contents or the ones from the file name? Seriously, i still don't see the start of a rational argument in your objections to an in-contents alternative. Which lets the subjective disagreement (you prefering to keep bash syntax unrestricted at the price of encumbered files names, and me prefering to restrict it on one particular line for keeping clean "name-version.fixed-extension" files names), for which argumentation is hopeless too. -- TGL. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
