On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:39:40 -0700 Nick Fortino <nfort...@gmail.com> wrote: > Given the above, it should be clear that any argument which states > some future improvement to the ebuild format will be impossible based > upon making the wrong choice between proposal 1 and proposal 2 must be > invalid, as they have the same expressive power. Note that allowable > algorithms for which the proof works includes caching and version > ordering as well as the simple execution of the ebuild.
Unfortunately, your argument is entirely wrong, as can be illustrated by a simple counter-example that you would already know about, had you read the GLEP or the thread. With EAPI in a fixed format, it is impossible to allow extensions to the version format in future EAPIs. Even given a fixed format and a constant extension, adding foo-1.23-rc1.ebuild will cause breakage, but adding foo-1.23-rc1.ebuild-4 will not. This has already been covered at length, and is explained in the GLEP. Why did you disregard this when posting your 'proof'? -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
