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: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...>
Subject: Re: Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:07:32 +0000
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:21:23 +0200
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote:
> 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild

There's a less extreme variant on this that's slightly cleaner, and
with appropriate weaseling is also less messy. Simply add the following
very carefully worded additional requirement for future EAPIs, and
retroactively impose it upon current ones:

If EAPI is to be set, it must be set strictly before any global scope
command or package manager defined function is called. Once set, EAPI
must not be set to a different value.

Then, the migration path is as follows:

* Fix existing violations (including ones in overlays). Wait a while
  until everyone's synced.

* Get package managers to make use of these stricter requirements to
  avoid barfing ickily when using things with future EAPIs with
  different global scope rules.

* Wait a year. New EAPIs can come out in the mean time, but they can't
  change global scope behaviour.

* Use that year to migrate to the key=value cache format with a second,
  package-manager-only versioned variable that lets package managers
  check cache validity even for unsupported EAPIs so long as there
  aren't any cache validation rule changes.

* Change global scope behaviour in new EAPIs at will, but not versioning
  rules.

Note that this is functionally equivalent to Brian's eapi as a function
proposal, but much less messy. It's also as powerful for the package
manager as fixed-position, but less inflexible. So if you must go with
something other than GLEP 55, along with all the restrictions and mess
that doing so imposes, this is the one to pick...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Attachment:
signature.asc (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives
-- Ciaran McCreesh
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: [RFC] QA bashism check on portage
Next by date:
Re: Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives


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.