On Tuesday 24 of February 2009 23:21:23 Petteri Räty wrote: > Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many > people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order > to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is > only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it > easy to read through. The existing thread should be used for actual > discussion about the GLEP and the alternatives. This should be a useful > experiment to see if we can control ourselves :) > > My notes so far: > > 1) Status quo > - does not allow changing inherit > - bash version in global scope > - global scope in general is quite locked down > > 2) EAPI in file extension > - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild > a) .ebuild-<eapi> > - ignored by current Portage > b) .<eapi>.ebuild > - current Portage does not work with this > c) .<eapi>.<new extension> > - ignored by current Portage
All of this are ok for me, though the first shot is my preffered one since it's the most human readable and the rest would be mostly seen as the package version. > > 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild > - Allows changing global scope > - EAPI can't be changed in an existing ebuild so the PM can trust > the value in the cache > - Does not allow changing versioning rules unless version becomes a > normal metadata variable > * Needs more accesses to cache as now you don't have to load older > versions if the latest is not masked > a) <new extension> I don't see this as the best solution. > b) new subdirectory like ebuilds/ > - we could drop extension all together so don't have to argue about > it any more > - more directory reads to get the list of ebuilds in a repository Nah. Scanning portage tree in this place would be more painful than it's currently. > c) .ebuild in current directory > - needs one year wait > > Regards, > Petteri
