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 |