Rémi Cardona wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : >> Kills the upgrade path completely. No good. > > Lemme sum this up in layman's terms : > > 1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to > avoid that for various reasons, all 100% valid. > > 2) Putting the EAPI in the filename : > > + it solves 1) > + it keeps backward compatibility because old PM won't recognize the > filenames > - it's not very "pretty"
I'd say the problems go way beyond just being not pretty. That longish email I wrote yesterday has a bunch of reasons I don't like it. And "pretty" makes the issue sound unimportant or superficial. > 3) Putting the EAPI in metadata.xml or in another external file > > + it solves 1) > + it keeps pretty file names > - it breaks backwards compatibility > - (specific to metadata.xml) PM will have to learn to read XML (yuck) > > That's about it, right? Good summary, except I think we can find ways to deal with compatibility (several ideas have been put forth already: giving time for PM to be upgraded, or a one-time tree or extension bump - and I'm sure there are even better ones yet to be discussed). I do not believe that the filename mangling solution is the "one and only way" as some people are insisting. Also, I'm not sure reading XML is a problem at all - python has good libs for this already. -Joe -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list