Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:43:10 +0100:
> Abstract > ======== > > This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for ebuilds > (for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1). This one does seem a marked improvement. Thanks. It really is noticeably better. =8^) > Specification > ============= I made this suggestion earlier but it was deep in a subthread and perhaps missed. Else, maybe it didn't reach you in time for this update. Anyway, here it is again: Right at this point, between the Specification header and the existing "Let's call"... below, for clarity I believe we need a formal syntax note, probably similar in format to the the one found in many manpages, where it is called "Synopsis". Checking other GLEPs, I don't see anything like this in most, but I do believe it /would/ help clarify and is thus worth it. Like the following (I'm omitting the RST stuff): Syntax: <PF>.ebuild[-<EAPI>] Where: <PF> is the full package name, version, and revision, as in man 5 ebuild. -<EAPI> is optional. <EAPI> is the named EAPI. Explanation: > Let's call the EAPI included in the ebuild filename the pre-source EAPI, > and the EAPI set inside the ebuild the post-source EAPI. Given these > two, the final EAPI used by the ebuild can be established by following > these steps: It may also be worthwhile to specifically note /somewhere/ that this only specifies *.ebuild* format, thus leaving other forms (say xbuild) for further changes, if it should ever be decided necessary. Combined, these two changes would have significantly reduced my initial confusion upon reading the GLEP, thus leading to a false impression and raising objections to the idea that didn't apply, once I understood more clearly what, specifically, was being proposed. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
