On 03/09/2012 10:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 03/09/12 13:02, James Broadhead 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 >> > > One of the benefits of GLEP 55 naming is that old package managers won't > try to parse them. So, for example, if we put new features in, > > app-foo/bar-1.0.0.ebuild-5 > > portage from 2003 won't try to source it.
Every software product has an end of life. I think if a system hasn't been updated in the last 2 years or so, then it's fair to assume that it will never be updated. So, all relevant versions of portage should simply show a warning message if the encounter an ebuild name such as "app-foo/bar-1.0.0-r1-e99.ebuild". -- Thanks, Zac
