On 2007/12/22, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The filename solution is by far the best -- it's the only one that > hasn't had any technical objections raised to it.
And can you remind us what technical objection, if any, has been raised against the "EAPI set in contents with enough syntaxic restrictions to allow its extraction without sourcing, and the files names extension changing only if this rules have to change" alternative? It's a bit annoying to see EAPI-in-contents solutions bashed everywhere in this thread under the pretext of backward or forward compatibility, whereas this points has been adressed very early in the discussion. So, once more to make it clear: yes, the current ".ebuild" extension would have to change into ".something" if we want to introduce such a solution without waiting N months. The difference with ".ebuild-$EAPI" being that ".something" would then stay unchanged for numerous later EAPIs (until some unlikely conditions are met, like a switch away from Bash format). -- TGL. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
