On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:02:51 +0000 James Broadhead <jamesbroadh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 March 2012 17:31, Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.com> wrote: > > At any rate, I'm now convinced that we all want GLEP 55, but with a > > different name. > > I think that moving the data to the filename is probably a better > approach than semi- or repeat parsing, but I prefer preserving the > .ebuild extension, and think that eapi should be specified similarly > to ebuild revision, as a suffix. for instance: > > app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1.ebuild # EAPI0 (or the highest EAPI prior to the > new schema) > app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1-e1.ebuild > app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1-e99.ebuild > if you want to keep .ebuild you need to keep current naming, afaik package managers fail on invalid names
