Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:03:12 +0000 > Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> * Set the EAPI inside the ebuild in a way that makes it easy to >> fetch it This is ok as atm only EAPI=1 is in the tree, so there is no >> backward compatibility issue. > > It's both a backwards and a forwards compatibility issue. > Yeah, so forwards into the future where it's impossible to maintain this format (er..) there'll be another type of ebuild for your purported long-term solution. >> * Have a new ebuild/eclass extension ".eapi-$EAPI" >> This is for ebuilds for other package managers; it is envisaged by >> some that this will become the new ebuild format since it enables >> quick access to the EAPI without accessing the file contents. <snip trivia about backend database formats>
> And eclasses are an entirely separate issue. They need to be dealt with > differently, ideally starting with EAPI 2. > But they come under the scope of this discussion, since this is about the long-term future of *every* EAPI. So let's discuss them. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
