-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 12/03/12 02:50 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> GLEP 55 is simple, it solves all the problems we have (including >> the version issue, which everyone is conveniently ignoring), it >> doesn't require us to guess what's going to happen next and it >> can be implemented immediately. That's a rather big deal. > > The "header comment" solution solves all these issues too, without > embedding unrelated information in the filename [1]. It can be > implemented immediately, too. > > The argument that was always used against such solutions was that > it would "hurt performance". However, when the council asked for > benchmarks that would prove that point, nobody could provide them. > > Ulrich
Regarding the filename issue, and the potential in the future for ebuilds that get parsed with other parsers: Is there any particular reason why we would want multiple ebuilds for a package to exist for the same version, but supporting different EAPIs (ad therefore different parsers)? If the answer to this is no, that there should always be only one ebuild per package version, then chances are good that we should keep the eapi (or other identifier) out of the file name. However, if the answer is yes, then the filename method is probably the cleanest way to do this. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk9eRzkACgkQAJxUfCtlWe18WwD5AeXETH+J4X8d8P7TX76FPGPS 0vS2rrRZktpLp70TkcQA/0Cl2/OdSlfwi0CqC8IBJffsY3epXkqxhzPL8bwsNAoj =Q5aK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
