Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:35:25 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Did anyone already propose specifying this in metadata.xml?
>
> Yup. That's a no-go, since metadata.xml is quite rightly treated as
> being "not suitable for anything the package manager really needs".
I think a separate file, especially one that uses a standard XML format,
would be a fine place for things that the PM needs. Just because we do
not use it this way now does not mean it is not a good idea. Also, the
EAPI would be out-of-band and not require sourcing of the bash script to
determine.
> It also moves the EAPI definition even further away from the ebuild,
> which makes it even harder to work with.
Harder to work with in what way?
> And, of course, it's not backwards compatible, so it'd still need a
> file extension change.
I am not convinced of this. As others have stated, portage/PM should be
upgraded with the new capability well in advance of new EAPIs.
-Joe
--
[email protected] mailing list
