On 03/09/2012 10:24 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > 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
Invalid names like those should only trigger warnings. -- Thanks, Zac
