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,
.c-3, etc.,
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 ebuild
[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
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 first
