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: Brian Harring <ferringb@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:52:32 -0800
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:38:06AM +0100, Tiziano M??ller wrote:
> > What is proposed in glep-55 seems to aim to solve both issues at the 
> > same time (it isn't stated) by switching file extension every time the 
> > eapi is changed. This is slightly against the principle of the least 
> > surprise and apparently is disliked by enough people to lead the 
> > situation to be discussed in the council.
> > 
> 
> Instead of switching file extension every time the eapi is changed you
> could also increment it only when a new EAPI breaks sourcing the ebuild
> compared to the requirements of the prior EAPI.
> (This way you'd in fact split EAPI into a major- and a minor-version.)

Complicates the implementation (annoying), but more importantly 
negates one of the features of g55- being able to tell via the 
extension if the manager supports that EAPI.

Honestly, the issue isn't breaking sourcing (literally unable to 
source it) of the ebuild as much as sourcing it *wrong*- simplest 
example, new metadata key is added in eapi 1.3, compliant 
implementations have to pull that key out of the env and put it in the 
cache.  Sourcing on the surface, would succeed- but the results would 
be worthless (it'd basically be similar to the situation now).

~brian
Attachment:
pgpklFEMpT7qr.pgp (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)
-- Duncan
References:
Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)
-- Luca Barbato
Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)
-- Tiziano Müller
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)
Next by thread:
Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)
Previous by date:
Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)
Next by date:
Re: 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.