Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Richard Yao <ryao@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:23:39 -0400
On 06/21/2012 04:29 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote:
>>>> POSIX Shell compliance
>>> So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon bash anyway (and can't
>>> easily be made not to), so even if developers would accept having to
>>> rewrite all their eclasses, it still wouldn't remove the dep.
>>>
>> Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can deal
>> with the package managers.
> Additionally, this is extremely unlikely because a number of developers 
> insist on bash, to the extent that it would likely split gentoo in half 
> if this were to be forced.  It wouldn't pass council.  It's unlikely to 
> even /get/ to council.
>
> Openrc could move to POSIX shell because its primary dev at the time 
> wanted it that way and it's only a single package.  However, even then, 
> doing it was controversial enough that said developer ended up leaving 
> gentoo in-part over that, tho he did continue to develop openrc as a 
> gentoo hosted project for quite some years.  Now you're talking trying to 
> do it for /every/ (well, almost every) package, thus touching every 
> single gentoo dev.  It's just not going to happen in even the medium term 
> (say for argument APIs 5-7ish), let alone be something practical enough 
> to implement, soon enough (even if everyone agreed on the general idea, 
> they don't), to be anything like conceivable for EAPI5.
>
> So just let that one be.  It's simply not worth tilting at that windmill.
>
> (Arguably, multi-arch, while practical and actually working at least with 
> portage in an overlay, fails that last bit as well.  If it was pushed, 
> perhaps for EAPI6 or 7, but it's just not practical to consider it for 
> EAPI5... unless you want to wait 3-5 years for EAPI5!)
>
It is just a wish list.

Anyway, people need to decide on what they want from a new EAPI before
one is made. Once they decide, it should be possible to work out the
details.


References:
My wishlist for EAPI 5
-- Richard Yao
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
-- Richard Yao
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
-- Duncan
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
Next by thread:
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
Previous by date:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-misc/lightdm: lightdm-1.2.2-r2.ebuild ChangeLog
Next by date:
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.