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
--
[email protected] mailing list
