| 1 |
On Sonntag, 14. September 2008, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, I'm open to alternative suggestions. Please see the previous |
| 3 |
> email in which I've attempted to explain the reasoning for the given |
| 4 |
> approach [1]. It seems to me that this approach is well suited for |
| 5 |
> solving cases in which temporary simultaneous installation of |
| 6 |
> blocking packages is needed. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Thanks for pointing me to it, Zac. I do not pretend to be able to pull the |
| 9 |
white bunny out of the black hat, presenting you the perfect alternative, |
| 10 |
especially since you've thought about it a lot more than me. I just feel |
| 11 |
uncomfortable, having ebuilds overwrite each others files. According to the |
| 12 |
referenced data, it'll work around a number of issues. The time will show, If |
| 13 |
real hard blocker issues remain a problem, I guess. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Again, please see my previous email on this subject [1]. The reason |
| 17 |
> that I think we should change the meaning of the '!' symbol is that |
| 18 |
> the majority of existing EAPI 0 or 1 blockers appear to fit the new |
| 19 |
> meaning already. So, we'll only have to use the new !!atom syntax |
| 20 |
> for special cases in which temporary simultaneous installation of |
| 21 |
> blocking packages must be explicitly forbidden. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Just the majority or pretty much all and the others are easily to find out and |
| 24 |
moved to EAPI 2, so the point I raised ceases to exist!? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I want to share another thought regarding this proposed addtion: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
!! has the double meaning a) "unmerge the following ebuilds later" and |
| 30 |
b) "overwriting files of the following ebuilds while merging changes makes |
| 31 |
them owned by the freshly merged ebuild" |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
so we have one symbol denoting two different commands, which could find use |
| 34 |
independently. Moreso, if we add more of these symbols to express something |
| 35 |
different, our syntax may look almost like Lisp in the end: |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
use? ( ! ( X ( Y ( || ( ( foo bar ) baz ) ) ) ) ) ) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Looks ugly, doesnt it? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
How about using two symbols for !! and having the possibility to aggreagate |
| 42 |
them, e.g. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
use? ( !XY||: ( ( foo bar ) baz ) ) |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
instead?! |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Carsten |
Archives