On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:54:41 +0200 Tobias Klausmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why? What's the big deal with .ebuild-? or .eapi-?.eb instead > > of .ebuild? > > One that you illustrate yourself: what aboud .eapi-11.eb or > .ebuild-11?
Then you include those in your static list not using patterns that deals with them. > What if you want to be able to choos EAPI names more > freely? Not a problem. We used .kdebuild-1 rather than .ebuild-kdebuild-1 for kdebuild, for example. > > > My point is this: from experience I suspect having a hard change > > > once and having easy progress on either side of it is preferable > > > to having mid-range complications all the time. > > > > .ebuild-? is not complicated. > > Oh, it adds a variable portion to something that's otherwise > static. > glob regex > classic *.ebuild .*\.ebuild > \.ebuild$ > > pms-style *.ebuild-* .*\.ebuild-[0-9]+ > \.ebuild-[0-9]+$ > > The newer sort of extension is much more involved to get *really* > right in patterns. Globs and regexen are only the two most > popular examples. You shouldn't be writing anything that even tries to look at any EAPI you don't support. You should be using a static list of file extensions, not a pattern. > > The only way it'll be "in the next ten years" rather than "in the > > next two years" is if Gentoo continues its current approach of > > making changes require every single person to agree... > > There is such a things as too much change too quickly. And even > if we take that 2 years number: do *you* know what changes we > might need in two years? I suspect not. Neither do I (or just > about anybody else). I just think the hoops we have to jump > through now to tackle hypothetical problems in two (or ten) years > aren't worth it. That's my point -- I don't pretend to know what we'll need in the future, so I don't advocate a solution that requires that we do know. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
