Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:53:30
Message-Id: 20071220035032.6312bed4@blueyonder.co.uk
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) by Steve Long
1 On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:07:35 +0000
2 Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
3 > > Except people *do* have generated DESCRIPTION etc, and with good
4 > > reason. A simple example is the vim-spell-* packages.
5 > >
6 > OK. Do you think a generated EAPI is a good idea? I'm curious as to
7 > how that would be reflected in the filename (as well as your reasons
8 > ofc.)
9
10 I'm suggesting that if EAPI is a variable, there are use cases for being
11 able to set the variable in ways other than right at the top of the
12 ebuild. If it isn't a variable then those use cases aren't relevant.
13
14 > No: without knowing the EAPI when generating said data. If that needs
15 > to be known relatively soon in order to generate the rest, extract it
16 > early. You still only need to load the file from disk once, and you
17 > don't need to source to get that data, given one simple restriction
18 > (only declaring it once.)
19
20 You can't get the EAPI from the ebuild without knowing what EAPI the
21 ebuild uses. That's one of the points you're missing.
22
23 > >> (I note this is a technical consideration of the implementation,
24 > >> given as a reason to change a clean API-- with consequences for
25 > >> workflow.)
26 > >
27 > > No no. It's already an ebuild-visible issue, and there's no way it
28 > > can't be that doesn't involve imposing restrictions upon every
29 > > single possible future EAPI.
30 > >
31 > The *reason* for the change is about the implementation, and it is not
32 > necessary.
33
34 It's an ebuild issue, not a package manager issue.
35
36 > I accept it would make metadata generation quicker, but the
37 > end-user can already use -metadata-transfer atm and never need to run
38 > that process. It would save many more cycles if more users did imo
39
40 You're confusing the two different types of metadata. Which again shows
41 that you need to start understanding the metadata process before trying
42 to discuss design decisions relating to it...
43
44 > (optimising early here seems silly tbh, given that paludis now
45 > requires ruby.)
46
47 Eh? Now what're you on about?
48
49 > Given that, as a user I see no benefit to my machines that would
50 > justify the maintenance headache which I know as a coder this will
51 > result in.
52
53 There is no maintenance headache.
54
55 > Quite apart from all the changes to supporting tools and workflow,
56 > it's pushing an implementation-specific datum into a namespace where
57 > it's neither needed nor useful, apart from to the implementation.
58
59 It's an ebuild issue, not a package manager issue.
60
61 > >> > Ebuilds are not config files.
62 > >> >
63 > >> Indeed not, but they can be parsed as such for simple, core,
64 > >> metadata.
65 > >
66 > > There is currently no information available from an ebuild that can
67 > > be parsed by any tool other than bash.
68 > >
69 > OK, but restricting EAPI= across the board (in the way that others
70 > have already asked for) and enforcing it via repoman would mean EAPI
71 > could easily be extracted.
72
73 Except that it's an arbitrary, pointless restriction.
74
75 > > And again, you show that you don't understand what's going on. EAPI
76 > > is only specified once except where developers screw up. The GLEP
77 > > merely moves the EAPI to being set *before* the metadata is
78 > > generated, which removes all the restrictions that having EAPI as
79 > > part of the ebuild's content imposes.
80 > >
81 > Hmm I think you should consider the example that this sub-thread is
82 > about, and whether an apology would be in order.
83
84 Huh?
85
86 > Since only declaring it the once /seems/ ok with you, what on Earth
87 > is so hard about extracting it?
88
89 With the current situation, the EAPI has to be known for the EAPI to be
90 calculated. Adding in a pre-pass layer enforcing new file format
91 restrictions does not solve the problem we're trying to address.
92
93 > I'm sure ruby has sufficient text processing capability if the C++ is
94 > a bit much for you; I remember there was that long-term bug in
95 > paludis not being able to deal with whitespace in config files, so
96 > clearly something's up with your text-processing. Hope that's finally
97 > fixed now.
98
99 Again, huh?
100
101 --
102 Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>