| 1 |
Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: |
| 2 |
> > PHP_TARGETS="5.3 5.4" |
| 3 |
> > RUBY_TARGETS="1.9" |
| 4 |
> > PYTHON_TARGETS="2.7" |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > But maybe it would be too problematic? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> What will you do with PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_2 pypy1_9 |
| 9 |
> jython2_5" then? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That's an excellent point. Thanks! |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Thinking out loud another round: _TARGETS is an interface by Gentoo, |
| 14 |
so maybe it would not be such a bad idea to use existing Gentoo |
| 15 |
identifiers there, ie. (a subset of?) PMS version specifications. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 19 |
> > the ruby syntax is problematic in the general case. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> And the Ruby syntax has been devised to suit the _installed commands_ |
| 22 |
> for the most part: ruby18 and ruby19 are _the commands you run_. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This discussion is not about how wise the RUBY_TARGETS syntax is for |
| 25 |
ruby, it is about if it would be possible to find and use a common |
| 26 |
syntax for all languages, to make a more consistent Gentoo interface. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> We're not going to change it just because. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Sorry, what do you mean by "just because" ? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I guess that you agree that being consistent and coherent helps |
| 34 |
acceptance, and that increasing Gentoo acceptance is desirable? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
If not that's fine, but please say so in that case? It's not clear |
| 37 |
to me why you are defensive rather than discussing merits of the |
| 38 |
change and possibilities for a general syntax. :\ |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 42 |
> > ruby18 and ruby19 are _the commands you run_. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Makes sense to me. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Look at the bigger picture. If the same process does not happen to |
| 47 |
work for all languages (I think unlikely) then in order for Gentoo |
| 48 |
to be consistent it would need a thicker layer for this task than |
| 49 |
refering to the commands. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> We are (almost) doing the same for python, but we can't have periods |
| 53 |
> in USE flag names. The underscore is a convenient replacement. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Inconsistent names are inconsistent.. The underscore replacement is |
| 56 |
confusing, without deep insight into how all these target atoms end |
| 57 |
up being converted to USE flags, and I also don't think it's obvious |
| 58 |
that USE flags aren't allowed to contain periods. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> I suppose we could use a hyphen like php does, but I don't think it |
| 62 |
> is worth the effort at this point. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
I think it would absolutely be worth the effort for everyone to |
| 65 |
change to a common, consistent, coherent, obvious syntax, as proposed |
| 66 |
in this thread, because even though it may be seen as a small thing |
| 67 |
it will only become more relevant with more languages and packages, |
| 68 |
and being consistent and coherent would allow Gentoo to make an even |
| 69 |
better impression. I would like that. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
The only way to succeed is if everyone who would effect the change |
| 72 |
actually wants to do it, e.g. because they also think that it would |
| 73 |
benefit Gentoo. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
Diego seems to be very protective in general of "his" packages, and |
| 76 |
he doesn't seem to want to change this, so I guess that this improvement |
| 77 |
is impossible, if he is the ultimate decision maker for ruby in Gentoo, |
| 78 |
but I'm not sure about any of that - please do clarify. |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
Thanks! |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
|
| 84 |
//Peter |
Archives