On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:36:58 +0100
Robert Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So relying on the file extension seems to be a recipe for
> misunderstanding. Why limit the functionality of the package manager
> to rely on the file names? How do you protect the package manager
> from a malicious ebuil
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:58:54 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, in general, if you rely on extensions changing every time a
> > program cannot deal with a new feature of a file format, it would be
> > quite crazy. For example, if C programs had to start using ".c-2",
> > "
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:49:08 -0600
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not saying it's a lot harder. But it is more complex and less
> elegant. Also, it is error-prone. If someone, by habit, looks for
> all "*.ebuild", he will miss a portion of the ebuilds and not even
> realize it at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 1) Increase of [needless] complexity in filenames/extensions (and only one
>> example of the impact is that searching for ebuild files becomes less
>> straightforward), when things like SLOT, EAPI, etc., etc., seem to
>> naturally belong as part of the script conte
