2007/12/18, Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Santiago M. Mola wrote: > >> One example was mentioned in this thread before: You cannot use > >> "find -name '*.ebuild'" anymore. > >> > > > > So people could use a bit more elaborated expression to find them. > > Things like this shouldn't be a reason for not applying > > EAPI/GLEPs/PM-behaviour changes. If this GLEP is approved, it would be > > fine to publish a quick guide of recipes to migrate scripts which rely > > on the old naming convention and that should be enough. > > > > IMO, keeping us away from improvements to Gentoo because they break > > backwards compatibility with third party scripts is a no-go. Of > > course, this kind of changes can't happen once a month, but they can > > happen from time to time. > > I don't think this is about strictly maintaining backwards > compatability. You are right that we should not let this impede > progress. My objection is that the proposed scheme does not appear to > make the system more elegant, but rather it creates complexity, > potential errors (mismatches in representions of EAPI), and introduces a > rather unorthodox and complicated file extension pattern. > > I also do not see why there are not other more elegant, transparent, and > automatic ways to determine EAPI without sourcing. I put forth an idea, > and I understand the objections to it, but I'm just brainstorming, and > there *must* be other ways that retain portage's elegance and simplicity. > > -Joe > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > >
Just another brainstorming attempt. Is it possible to use one single file per eapi which lists all ebuilds using a specific eapi like package.eapi-name and is stored in the profiles. Or even one single file which lists the ebuild and its eapi. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
