Ravi Pinjala wrote:
Nick Fortino wrote:
Such a transformation is possible, given the restrictions on arg, as
well as ebuild format.
Isn't this a bit circular? The whole point of wanting to change the
extension is to get rid of exactly these restrictions; if you assume the
restrictions, then the whole thing is kind of pointless. :)
What restrictions? The restriction that EAPI be fixed on the 5th line
of the build, or the restriction that EAPI be fixed in the filename. I
don't really see much difference between them. What can the one do that
the other can't.
The only thing that has been suggested is changing the package
versioning scheme. That is handled in a straightforward way - parse the
EAPI before you try to extract the version from the filename. Sure,
that isn't compatible with older versions of portage, but if we start
now I'm sure we can get there in the reasonably near future.
Personally, I'm not a fan of parsing ANYTHING out of the filename.
Sure, keep the file naming convention for the sake of convenience, but I
think a better design would be to field everything inside the file -
including category, packagename, and version. Then you no longer have
to worry about whether a given hyphen is a separator or part of one of
the components (among other things). Sure, you can't just bump an
ebuild by renaming it, but if we had been doing it this way all along
then the versioning issue we're debating now would be a non-issue.
