1 |
On Monday 14 December 2009 13:21:29 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:01:03 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > > Keeping it around without a specification is a bad idea. And no, the |
4 |
> > > plan is not to keep it anywhere forever. The plan is to keep it |
5 |
> > > around until we can ensure that users aren't going to be affected |
6 |
> > > by the removal. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > which is irrelevant to the PMS. fact is, only your PM supports it |
9 |
> > and no one is telling you what to do with your PM. correctly |
10 |
> > removing it from PMS wont affect any user whatsoever. absolutely no |
11 |
> > users would be affected by cleaning up the PMS git tree. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> As has already been explained, keeping the spec around is a necessary |
14 |
> part of keeping the implementation around. |
15 |
|
16 |
that is purely your own decision. having it in PMS has 0 bearing on it. |
17 |
kdebuild behavior isnt going to magically change semantics with |
18 |
pkg_{pre,post}rm and if it does, it isnt going to because someone changes it |
19 |
behind your back. i'm sure you're more than capable of watching the changes |
20 |
going into your PM. |
21 |
|
22 |
> > as for "it's what the official KDE docs said", that too is complete |
23 |
> > bs. there are teams with more important ebuilds that have |
24 |
> > instructions that only work with portage. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> I highly doubt that, since if that were the case we'd be receiving |
27 |
> reports from users about it. |
28 |
|
29 |
i guess i'm not a user and my multislot bug doesnt exist. and my |
30 |
CBUILD/CTARGET reports were discarded. prepstrip i dont think i bothered |
31 |
pushing because of your insistence on ignoring prep* functions. having broken |
32 |
PM (where PM != portage) behavior is what you get then; no sweat off my back. |
33 |
|
34 |
> > if anyone tried to add these to the PMS, you'll fully bitch and moan |
35 |
> > and block it from ever making it into the PMS. some of these rely on |
36 |
> > portage behavior with the environment and some of these rely on |
37 |
> > behavior portage has had for years (and before the PMS). |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Er, no. If that were the case, users wouldn't be able to use Paludis. |
40 |
|
41 |
funny how you use a logic statement in defense of your PM, but then at the |
42 |
same exact time use it to block other PMs. how you manage this constant |
43 |
circular logic is beyond me. |
44 |
|
45 |
> > > Uh. Riiiiight. I'm just drowning in bug reports from users who're |
46 |
> > > using ebuilds that break with Paludis because we haven't |
47 |
> > > implemented things that've been used in the tree for years. Perhaps |
48 |
> > > you'd care to back up your mud-slinging with some examples. |
49 |
> > |
50 |
> > stop with your misdirection bullshit. you know plenty of examples. |
51 |
> > then again, your style is to keep whining that you arent aware of |
52 |
> > anything until someone explicitly mentions them, so there's prep*, |
53 |
> |
54 |
> prep* can't go in since what it does has yet to be locked down or |
55 |
> guaranteed. We can't spec it as "does something arbitrary", yet that's |
56 |
> all prep* is guaranteed to do. And, as you know, EAPI 4 has had |
57 |
> features added to it to give you what you were after, except done in a |
58 |
> well defined manner. |
59 |
|
60 |
i dont recall anyone going over a replacement for prepstrip. the toolchain |
61 |
packages have been using this interface for quite a while and rely on it |
62 |
working correctly. current git master doesnt seem to mention anything wrt |
63 |
stripping behavior. |
64 |
|
65 |
> > FEATURES |
66 |
> |
67 |
> There is no legitimate use for FEATURES in the tree, since something |
68 |
> being in FEATURES only indicates that the user asked for it, not that |
69 |
> it is enabled. For example, ebuilds that do has userpriv $FEATURES are |
70 |
> broken, because userpriv in features does not mean that userpriv has |
71 |
> actually been enabled by Portage. |
72 |
|
73 |
i never said the code/design was clean. i did however say that we have |
74 |
defacto spec that people are relying on and it isnt in PMS and you block it, |
75 |
yet specs that was explicitly never approved and never in the tree you had no |
76 |
problem adding. |
77 |
|
78 |
> > and CBUILD/CTARGET in econf to mention a few. |
79 |
> |
80 |
> Could you point me to the bug for that one please? I think I can see |
81 |
> what PMS might be missing on that one, but I don't recall ever seeing a |
82 |
> bug about it, or what the conclusion was. I also can't find the bug by |
83 |
> searching for comments containing all of the words "pms ctarget", or |
84 |
> "pms cbuild". |
85 |
|
86 |
i told you about it in the very first draft review of PMS and you told me it |
87 |
had no business in the PMS and it was a portage-specific feature. i had to |
88 |
bitch and moan to even get mentioned as reserved so it wouldnt be arbitrarily |
89 |
hijacked by stupid people. |
90 |
|
91 |
here's the notes from my initial review i gave you oh-so-long ago and you |
92 |
responded on irc at the time (no, i dont have irc logs because i dont log |
93 |
anything): |
94 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/PMS-notes |
95 |
|
96 |
> > > > it doesnt belong there, it never has, so delete it/branch it |
97 |
> > > > already. |
98 |
> > > |
99 |
> > > You still haven't explained why it's better to delete it now than |
100 |
> > > to do a controlled removal that won't affect users. |
101 |
> > |
102 |
> > and you have yet to show how your PM behavior is relevant one bit to |
103 |
> > the PMS here. removing unofficial crap from the PMS has no bearing |
104 |
> > whatsoever on ebuilds that require unofficial PMs. keep the crap in |
105 |
> > your PM forever for all i care. |
106 |
> |
107 |
> Uh. See earlier emails in the thread. |
108 |
|
109 |
not much point when you have no justification for why it needs to be kept |
110 |
-mike |