On 19 March 2012 14:12, Steven J Long <sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote: > > As for non-bash ebuilds, I have always agreed with antarus that they should > simply use a different extension. Adding a new extension per source language > is a *lot* cleaner than one per EAPI.
Ok: If we take this notion and enshrine it in stone: If we assume Bash 4 is a seperate language from Bash 3, as its syntax-backwards-incompatible, is it fair to suggest that for some future EAPI which require Bash 4, that the extension change to suit? ie: move from .ebuild to .ebuild4 , where '.ebuild' conveys the format is bash, and that '.ebuild4' is bash4 only? That way you have a forwards declaration of the syntax/file format required to parse the file, but no declaration of the EAPI, so you're not breaking encapsulation. This is breaking the direct file==eapi connection, but still maintaining a loose file<->eapi connection. Its /sort/ of like the "one time extension change" proposal, except its less 'arbitrary' than something like .eb , and it gives us the future option of changing the suffix again if bash 5 comes out with different syntax. Then we can do .ebuild = EAPI 0 - 4 & bash >= 3 .ebuild4 = EAPI5 - 9 & bash >= 4 .ebuild5 = EAPI10 - 15 & bash >= 5 Thoughts? -- Kent perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"