On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:58:54 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, in general, if you rely on extensions changing every time a > > program cannot deal with a new feature of a file format, it would be > > quite crazy. For example, if C programs had to start using ".c-2", > > ".c-3", etc., it would get ugly fast. > > Which is why programs that use any major C feature introduced since > 1980 use the extension '.cc' or '.cpp'. Except any program using .cc or .cpp for code is liable to break on gcc, as they are C++ file extensions, and to the best of my (admittedly limited knowledge) C and C++ are distinct languages... So relying on the file extension seems to be a recipe for misunderstanding. Why limit the functionality of the package manager to rely on the file names? How do you protect the package manager from a malicious ebuild masquerading under the wrong EAPI? Relying on the file name for information is the kind of design decision we laugh at in Windows, so why adopt it here? -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
