Hi! On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 16 May 2009 11:27:10 +0200 > Tobias Klausmann <klaus...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Change the spec, then. > > If we change the spec, we can't do anything with the change until we're > absolutely sure that everyone's updated both their ebuilds and their > package manager for it.
The change the extension *once*, and make an EAPI spec at the top of the file for that file format. I'd rather have the extension change once, with pain, than with every EAPI change. My opinion is that reflecting the EAPI in the file name is a very, very Bad Idea. > > Actually, I personally would prefer taking it out of the > > parsed-by-bash part entirely. Add it as a shebang-like line at > > the top: > > > > #EAPI-1 > > > > as the first or second line. Allowing it on the second line > > allows you to later bolt on a true shebang-line if you should so > > desire. Only having to look at the first two lines makes finding > > it out easier (note that I don't call that parsing on purpose). > > Would mean we'd have to change every existing ebuild everywhere. No, it means we have to change every ebuild of which we claim that it works that way. Versioned file structures *without* changing the extension have been done and they have worked. Yes, there may be pain along the way. But that is true no matter which route we go. What people prefer is in no small way tied to the amount of pain they expect from a given solution. And they're right to do so. Regards, Tobias -- Found on a small utility knife in MIT's lab supply: "Caution. Blade is sharp. Keep out of children."
