Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Installation:
Gentoo Handbook
Installation Docs

Documentation:
Home
Listing
About Gentoo
Philosophy
Social Contract

Resources:
Bug Tracker
Developer List
Discussion Forums
Gentoo BitTorrents
Gentoo Linux Enhancement Proposals
IRC Channels
Mailing Lists
Mirrors
Name and Logo Guidelines
Online Package Database
Security Announcements
Staffing Needs
Supporting Vendors
View our CVS

Graphics:
Logos and themes
Icons
ScreenShots

Miscellaneous Resources:
Gentoo Linux Store
Gentoo-hosted projects
IBM dW/Intel article archive




List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>
Subject: Re: Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:16:57 +0100
I have no strong opinion about this.

> 2) EAPI in file extension
>   - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild
>   a) .ebuild-<eapi>
>     - ignored by current Portage

simple, straightforward but ugly

>   b) .<eapi>.ebuild
>     - current Portage does not work with this

this only has disadvantages in front of a)

>   c) .<eapi>.<new extension>
>     - ignored by current Portage

same as a) but maybe less ugly

> 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild
>   - Allows changing global scope
>   - EAPI can't be changed in an existing ebuild so the PM can trust
>     the value in the cache

This doesn't need a locked down place, just some strict way of setting
it, like at most one EAPI="constant_string_without_space" so that grep
& friends can catch it.

>   - Does not allow changing versioning rules unless version becomes a
>     normal metadata variable

I'm not entirely sure about this and would need some real
example/argument in order to be convinced

>     * Needs more accesses to cache as now you don't have to load older
>       versions if the latest is not masked

true but this "more" would need to be measured and opposed to the
number of metadata loads in a dep resolution procedure.

>   a) <new extension>

doesn't have the one year wait drawback and doesn't mess with pm
implementation details (eapi) with package names that shall represent
upstream ones.

>   b) new subdirectory like ebuilds/
>   - we could drop extension all together so don't have to argue about
>     it any more
>   - more directory reads to get the list of ebuilds in a repository

I see no advantage there vs 3.a)

>   c) .ebuild in current directory
>   - needs one year wait

That could have been done one year ago and would be done now; I think
it's still fine now because I don't expect major behavior changes in
the ebuild format within one year.

To summarize, I would retain 3.a as best solution, having the "usable
right now" advantage of current glep55 and keeping the ebuild's file
names (more or less) consistent with upstream ones.

Alexis.
Attachment:
signature.asc (PGP signature)
References:
Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives
-- Petteri Räty
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives
Next by thread:
Re: Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives
Previous by date:
Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)
Next by date:
Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Donate to support our development efforts.

Gentoo Centric Hosting: vr.org

VR Hosted

Tek Alchemy

Tek Alchemy

SevenL.net

SevenL.net

php|architect

php|architect

Copyright 2001-2007 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Email www@gentoo.org.