Ravi Pinjala wrote:
> Instead of changing rules for existing ebuilds, then, why not formalize
> some guidelines for non-ebuild-compatible packages in the tree, separate
> from EAPIs? Allowing new package formats is the next logical
> generalization after considering new and incompatible ebuild for
There's been a lot of noise on this list the past few days about GLEP
55, but precious few solutions actually proposed. Changing the file
extension would certainly be useful for some changes, but the success of
EAPIs >0 which are already in the tree demonstrates that for many
changes, altering the
