| 1 |
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:00:12 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On czw, 2017-03-23 at 19:52 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:53:25 +0100 |
| 6 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > On czw, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100 |
| 10 |
> > > > "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 11 |
> > > > |
| 12 |
> > > > > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K. |
| 13 |
> > > > > Huettel: |
| 14 |
> > > > > > |
| 15 |
> > > > > > So what's so special about your packages that you *need* a |
| 16 |
> > > > > > hack as ugly as eblits? |
| 17 |
> > > > > > |
| 18 |
> > > > > |
| 19 |
> > > > > No response. Seems like there are no real arguments for |
| 20 |
> > > > > eblits. |
| 21 |
> > > > |
| 22 |
> > > > I guess the argument is not for or against eblit but rather |
| 23 |
> > > > about "when you want to change something you don't maintain, |
| 24 |
> > > > you have to justify it properly" |
| 25 |
> > > |
| 26 |
> > > Do you think really think it's fine for maintainer to: |
| 27 |
> > > |
| 28 |
> > > 1. go against best practices, principle of least surprise and |
| 29 |
> > > basically make it harder for anyone else to touch the ebuild (-> |
| 30 |
> > > aim for bus factor of 1 and/or making himself indispensable)? |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > This is very (too) subjective. |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > > 2. enforce package managers to exhibit non-PMS behavior by making |
| 35 |
> > > core system packages rely on it? Not to mention minor |
| 36 |
> > > incompatibilities causing silent breakage. |
| 37 |
> > |
| 38 |
> > What, exactly, is non-PMS ? The access rule has been added after |
| 39 |
> > last EAPI was approved it seems. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> It would be really appreciated if you at least conducted proper |
| 42 |
> research before starting to troll. As Ulrich already explained in |
| 43 |
> this thread (which I presume you have read), the rule was *laxed*. |
| 44 |
> According to the previous rule, eblits could not work at all since |
| 45 |
> FILESDIR was *never* allowed in global scope. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Indeed, according to pms.git commit log, the rule was laxed because it |
| 48 |
was clearly an oversight in EAPI6 [1] and was the standard behavior in |
| 49 |
previous EAPIs. But in the same commit, an "harmless note" was added |
| 50 |
that "Ebuilds must not access the directory in global scope." in |
| 51 |
addition to the "May or may not exist" statement and "Not necessarily |
| 52 |
present when installing from a binary package" footnote. Please explain |
| 53 |
how this last addition is not a backwards-breaking change. PMS is not a |
| 54 |
tool to push your personal agenda of cleaning up the deve^^err tree. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
[1] |
| 58 |
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/pms.git/commit/?id=fa4ac9474048ec75af138fc61f22485c06aac5b7 |
Archives