On 03/13/2012 10:05 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/13/2012 06:42 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
Leaving it such that the PM has to enforce things like "don't have
multiple EAPI assignments" means by default, one of them isn't going
to... leading to the ebuilds breaking... specifically the common case
being the ebuild becoming acclimated to some quirk of portage.
My intention is for PMS to specify the search algorithm that's used to
probe the EAPI, and also for it to specify that package managers must
treat an ebuild as invalid if the probed EAPI is not identical to the
one that's obtained from bash. If all package managers adhere strictly
to these two requirements, then we won't have any incompatibilities
between package managers here.
Someone should really throw up a table on wiki.g.o with a comparison of
the proposed methods. IIRC, the pros/cons of this in contrast to GLEP 55
are something like,
Pro:
* We don't need to change the filename, and "ebuild" is nice
* GLEP 55 pissed people off, and was already rejected
* Some people think the EAPI rightfully belongs in the ebuild
Cons:
* New features can't be implemented immediately because PMs
have to catch up first.
* Slight performance hit
* Old package managers on out-of-date systems will barf on it
* It involves using a magic identifier, e.g. a comment. Magic is
bad, and the fact that messing with a comment can break your PM
is counter-intuitive.
* Some people think the EAPI rightfully belongs in the filename
and the last one is worth the most points to everyone anyway.
