1 |
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:17:56 +0100 |
2 |
Steven J Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
> If the problem had been adequately communicated in the first place |
4 |
> (which is pretty much required for any proposal ime) instead of people |
5 |
> being told they "don't understand so go away" we could have agreed |
6 |
> then, that the issue was simply about knowing the EAPI before |
7 |
> sourcing. |
8 |
|
9 |
That is not what the issue is. That is half of what the issue is. |
10 |
|
11 |
> As it is, we _finally_ have grudging submission that tightening the |
12 |
> PMS to reflect QA reality works but is not "the best solution." |
13 |
|
14 |
No, it would not be to reflect reality. We would have to tighten the |
15 |
rules in such a way that it breaks things people have already done, and |
16 |
if we were to do so it would either impose performance penalties or not |
17 |
allow us the full scope of changes, and it would still require us to |
18 |
wait a year or more before going ahead with any of these changes. |
19 |
|
20 |
> (Even though the case for changing version format has not been made, |
21 |
|
22 |
The Council disagrees. |
23 |
|
24 |
> the argument applies to the other incompatible changes affecting |
25 |
> global environment.) |
26 |
|
27 |
No, that's a separate issue, and does not have the same performance |
28 |
implications. |
29 |
|
30 |
> Firstly, and most significantly, this only applies when the mangler |
31 |
> does not have the ebuild metadata in cache. |
32 |
|
33 |
Not true. |
34 |
|
35 |
> Bear in mind portage automatically caches overlays |
36 |
> under /var/cache/edb |
37 |
|
38 |
You are confusing the dep cache with the metadata cache. They are not |
39 |
the same thing. |
40 |
|
41 |
> Secondly, for the mangler to determine the "best-visible", EAPI is |
42 |
> not the only item under consideration. So again, there is a lie |
43 |
> implicit: whether from cache or from file, the mangler will ALWAYS |
44 |
> need some metadata on the ebuilds; CPV + EAPI is insufficient. |
45 |
|
46 |
It currently, and will still with 55, require metadata from only *some* |
47 |
ebuilds (usually just one). You're talking about making it require |
48 |
metadata from all of the ebuilds. |
49 |
|
50 |
> At very best, all EAPI in filename (wherever it is) does, is limit |
51 |
> the set of ebuilds to those with a supported EAPI before the cache |
52 |
> has to be consulted. For Gentoo users (who update as recommended) |
53 |
> using Gentoo product, that's _every_ ebuild in the tree and overlays. |
54 |
|
55 |
Er, no. It means we only have to consult any file at all for the best |
56 |
version, and then go backwards down versions until we find a visible |
57 |
version. |
58 |
|
59 |
> So what practically are we accomplishing for our users? |
60 |
|
61 |
We are letting package manager people make the changes needed so that |
62 |
developers can write better ebuilds. |
63 |
|
64 |
> And how much developer time would be wasted to do so, and indeed has |
65 |
> already been wasted on this? |
66 |
|
67 |
Thanks to emails like yours, lots. |
68 |
|
69 |
> (If you don't think it is a problem, please feel free to say |
70 |
> so /without/ resorting to insult over reason. If you think the |
71 |
> proposal had merit: how come we've only now got agreement that |
72 |
> easily-extractable EAPI works?) |
73 |
|
74 |
Easily-extractable EAPI either has change scope limitations or a |
75 |
considerable performance impact. |
76 |
|
77 |
GLEP 55's getting nowhere because a small group of religious fanatics |
78 |
are doing anything they can to derail it because it came from "the |
79 |
wrong people". If you want to know the kind of arguments that are being |
80 |
thrown against GLEP 55 now, just have a look at: |
81 |
|
82 |
22:54 < ciaranm> it's been established by precedent that gleps propose |
83 |
an enhancement, and that competing enhancements get their own gleps |
84 |
22:55 < bonsaikitten> well, we claim precedent on this one |
85 |
22:55 < bonsaikitten> so there :) |
86 |
22:55 < ciaranm> point to your precedent please |
87 |
22:55 < bonsaikitten> it is the precedent |
88 |
22:56 < ciaranm> bonsaikitten: uh... i don't think you know what that |
89 |
means.. |
90 |
22:56 < bonsaikitten> ciaranm: you refuse to accept time travel |
91 |
|
92 |
Yup, the argument of the week against GLEP 55 is that we refuse to |
93 |
accept time travel. |
94 |
|
95 |
-- |
96 |
Ciaran McCreesh |