-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:20:06 +0200
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@g.o> wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Marius Mauch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:52:37 +0200
>>> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@g.o> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday 28 June 2008 17:03:13 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
>>>>>> PV=${PV/0./}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to that new ebuild. This is the cleanest way to do it and doesn't
>>>>>> require any variable name changes or any other changes to the
>>>>>> ebuild regardless of what it does. Unfortunately it is also
>>>>>> illegal per current PMS as PV is a read-only variable. Right now
>>>>>> I feel that the gain of having PV read-only (catch a few bugs?)
>>>>>> is much lower than the pain (extensive ebuild-dependend changes
>>>>>> when the version scheme changes). Please comment.
>>>>> I don't really see how making PV not read-only is any easier than
>>>>> using MY_PV. Did you expect changing PV to magically change P, PVR
>>>>> and PF too?
>>>> If we can agree to have those values writable we could define a
>>>> function that will handle resetting all those too.
>>> Not going to happen. These variables are used internally by portage
>>> in various ways, and making their content inconsistent with the
>>> version in the filename is likely to cause subtle bugs and/or weird
>>> behavior. Besides, you've yet to explain the benefit of it, short
>>> of avoiding a simple replace operation in an ebuild, and the given
>>> use case isn't all that common anyway.
>> Why can't portage use its own variables and export these with an
>> initial value but not use them further?
> 
> Because there is no need to create even more variables when there is
> absolutely no benefit.

The benefit is being able to automatically reversion an ebuild. Reversioning may
not be necessary very often, but it's annoying when it is and there is no good
reason that it should. There is no benefit in keeping the version variables
read-only.

Marijn

- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhn5XkACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xBgwCfbOtDaJ27kj1A2CbO95dkrkZb
x0MAn1usfmfaktYA83MoiukBvlXIuuUN
=BQs/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list