If you need eapi in file name what are the technical reasons of putting
it into file name extension? Why don't you suggest better ebuild name
like:
pkg-ver-eapi.ebuild or pkg-eapi-ver.ebuild ?
I remember last time I've asked this genone told me that this is not
backward compatible. Ok, it's not,
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:25:50 +0400
Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you need eapi in file name what are the technical reasons of
putting it into file name extension? Why don't you suggest better
ebuild name like:
pkg-ver-eapi.ebuild or pkg-eapi-ver.ebuild ?
a) breaks current package
В Срд, 11/06/2008 в 08:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:25:50 +0400
Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you need eapi in file name what are the technical reasons of
putting it into file name extension? Why don't you suggest better
ebuild name like:
Peter Volkov wrote:
Well for me .ebuild-eapi is much more confusing.
I still don't see why it's impossible to have eapi as a part of name but
not in extension...
Although putting EAPI in the name and not the extension is *slightly*
preferable to using the extension, I still do not think that
