On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Richard Freeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > glep55: See GLEP55. To summarize: The eapi is put into the file name so > that the package manager knows the EAPI (and thus how to handle this file > format). While it simplifies the eapi discovery this comes at a high price > as there is no reliable way to find and validate all ebuilds. It also > enforces some minor limitations, for example EAPI needs to be unique and > cannot be overridden by eclasses. Some people also see it as bad design as > it exposes file internals in the filename. Okay, this has been bothering me....sorry if this is a sort of silly question, but why not just use the (already extant) metadata.xml for the...err, metadata about a package? In any case, I'm strongly opposed to the idea of encoding any more metadata into the filename than is strictly necessary to uniquely identify the file. As both a software developer and a user, please do not do this. Regards, Wyatt
