On 2007/12/20, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Uh, it works in both those cases. The package manager will simply not > see the ebuild at all. > > Which is pretty much the point...
Yes, because a change in the way EAPI is read implies a change in the files naming rule, so that the PM recognize the file only if it can do something useful with it. That's true for both proposals, which was pretty much my point. And that thus, it was not an argument in favor of one against the other. I still think that changing file names when absolutly required (switching from "EAPI=foo" to "eapi foo", or moving it elsewhere, or switching to xml, etc.) is less disturbing than changing it for every single new EAPI. It's not because one new extension may not be eternally enough that we should introduce an infinity right now. But yeah, to be honest, you're right that my original "as long as ebuilds stay bash" was a bit optimistic: it was assuming there would be no decision of changing that rule as long as there would be no good reason for it (like a switch to xml or whatever other not-bash format). -- TGL. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
