On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:10:46 -0700 Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I probably missed some of the stuff leading up to this GLEP, but what > is the problem with having the EAPI in the file and determining it by > looking at the file contents?
Motivation, second bullet point: | Possibility to extend the behaviour of inherit and add new global | scope functions (as a result of not sourcing ebuilds with unsupported | EAPI). > Making the file extension variable by adding "-<EAPI>" to it would, in > my opinion, make the portage tree a bit less clean and not as elegant. > Wouldn't software (like editors determining file type by looking at > what is after the ".") also need to be reworked to recognize a > variable string after "-" at the end? Yep, but that's not very difficult. And as a side effect, editors could then provide EAPI aware highlighting. > I imagine a lot of people do things now like 'find . -name "*.ebuild" > | xargs grep ...'. Not that they could not change their habbits, but > forgetting to add a more complex matching rule could lead to errors > here. -name '*.ebuild*' isn't exactly much more complex... -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
