1 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk> posted |
2 |
20071227181133.28ff5684@×××××××××××××.uk, excerpted below, on Thu, 27 Dec |
3 |
2007 18:11:33 +0000: |
4 |
|
5 |
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:03:27 +0000 |
6 |
> Roy Marples <roy@×××××××.name> wrote: |
7 |
>> On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 17:43 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
8 |
>> > Or to put it another way, you're objecting to painting the house pink |
9 |
>> > rather than green because you don't like pink (because your last |
10 |
>> > house was green too), ignoring that it's been demonstrated that when |
11 |
>> > painted green, it's impossible to add a conservatory and central |
12 |
>> > heating because the green paint will catch fire and kill everyone. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> Using your analogy you should then recognise that there is a strong |
15 |
>> dislike for pink and should seek a new colour that allows the building |
16 |
>> of said extensions. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> And what colour would that be? We've already ruled out purple, brown and |
19 |
> yellow, and no-one has yet found any other colour of paint. |
20 |
|
21 |
OK, I still think putting it in the file name is less prone to error, but |
22 |
what about this, call it "blue" if you will? |
23 |
|
24 |
1) Strictly define and restrict EAPI to a specific form in a specific |
25 |
file location (say EAPI=value, unquoted, as the first line of the file). |
26 |
|
27 |
2) Quickly define say EAPI=1_ext, that further defines say SUB_EAPI, or |
28 |
EBPI, or EAPI-B, which is allowed to be a function or whatever, with the |
29 |
only further restrictions on it being those that would apply to EAPI- |
30 |
suffix file names. |
31 |
|
32 |
That should give us the nailed down qualities of putting it in the file |
33 |
name, while providing the flexibility therein as well. There may be a |
34 |
bit of delay while we wait for non-EAPI aware PMs to drop out, but by the |
35 |
sounds of things, it's not going to be much more than fighting this thru |
36 |
and getting it approved is likely to be (a couple months, anyway), and as |
37 |
it's a different EAPI, EAPI aware PMs should ignore it if they don't |
38 |
understand it. PMs can then do a pre-parse, looking at the first line in |
39 |
specified format just as they'd otherwise look at the filename. With |
40 |
that information in hand, if the EAPI is 1_ext and they understand that, |
41 |
they'll immediately know to check SUB_EAPI or whatever, which is as |
42 |
flexible as bash parsing is. If at some point in the future we want to |
43 |
go to XML based formats or whatever, we cross that bridge when we come to |
44 |
it and /then/ we do the filename thing, if it's still thought to be |
45 |
necessary. Meanwhile, other (master) EAPIs may yet be defined, if their |
46 |
practical use is restricted enough to fit within the strict first line |
47 |
EAPI=whatever rule above, and those could include further refinements on |
48 |
the SUB_EAPI theme if they become necessary, WITHOUT a multiplication if |
49 |
ebuild-xxx extensions. |
50 |
|
51 |
The big drawback I see here is the the forced delay until EAPI aware PMs |
52 |
can be assumed, but as I said, it seems that's going to be the case with |
53 |
the current proposal anyway, simply because of the amount of resistance |
54 |
to it and the delay in approval that's likely to mean, even if it /is/ |
55 |
ultimately approved. |
56 |
|
57 |
-- |
58 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
59 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
60 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |