Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Matti Bickel <mabi@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Reviving GLEP33
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 17:22:59
Message-Id: 4C5AF34C.2010608@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Reviving GLEP33 by Brian Harring
1 On 08/05/2010 05:27 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
2 > If a PM encounters an EAPI it doesn't understand/support, by
3 > definition the metadata it tried generating is not usable- the PM
4 > doesn't support that new EAPI thus it has zero clue how to
5 > generate/store metadata appropriately for that EAPI.
6
7 I guess the point here is that we need a stable version of PMs for a
8 reasonable time before we switch tree ebuilds to it.
9 People will hate me if I use EAPI4 functionality in php ebuilds as soon
10 as councils approves EAPI4. Security might want a word with me if it's a
11 fast-stable security release.
12
13 But this is orthogonal to GLEP55, afaik.
14
15 >> Bad. So I guess it's back to ferring's "use a new directory not readable
16 >> by old PMs" idea. GLEP55++, but having to wait several months for that
17 >> and GLEP33 *on top* is not very motivation for me.
18 >
19 > The reason for a new directory was to enforce a new structuring that
20 > was more friendly to changelogs and manifests- due to ECLASSDIR being
21 > documented in PMS (and annoyingly eclass-manpagers being the sole
22 > consumer of it) adding a new eclasses directory should require a EAPI
23 > bump.
24
25 I'm not going to argue that PMS doesn't seem to say anything about the
26 content of ECLASSDIR other than that eclasses are stored inside it.
27 A new dir is fine with me. Can we have that in EAPI4 or is that already
28 being finalized?
29
30 > As for per package eclasses, I'd personally require accessing the
31 > package eclass being done via a new inherit function- this avoids some
32 > annoying gotchas. That said, I don't see a reason right now that it
33 > couldn't be added into an EAPI, per the reasons I laid out earlier in
34 > this email.
35
36 Okay, so how can I, as somebody not familiar with PM dev process and
37 roadmaps, help in getting this done?

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Reviving GLEP33 Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Reviving GLEP33 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>