On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:31:09 -0600 Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think a separate file, especially one that uses a standard XML > format, would be a fine place for things that the PM needs.
XML is a pain in the ass. > Just because we do not use it this way now does not mean it is not a > good idea. Also, the EAPI would be out-of-band and not require > sourcing of the bash script to determine. The file extension is out-of-band and yet still coupled to the individual ebuilds in an obvious way. > > It also moves the EAPI definition even further away from the ebuild, > > which makes it even harder to work with. > > Harder to work with in what way? It decouples the EAPI and the thing written in that EAPI. > > And, of course, it's not backwards compatible, so it'd still need a > > file extension change. > > I am not convinced of this. As others have stated, portage/PM should > be upgraded with the new capability well in advance of new EAPIs. But that's exactly what EAPIs are there to solve. Having to wait two years (or however long Gentoo goes between releases these days) just to use simple new features slows down progress even more. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
