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: Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o>
Subject: Re: EAPI stored in metadata.xml (was: Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:37:41 +0100
Hi,

sorry, if this post doubles some other posts already done by others...I
wrote it during a journey and haven't catched yet with the discussion.

Kumba <kumba@g.o>:

> Kumba wrote:
> > 
> > I was talking to Alec last night in -dev (yes, I'm still alive),
> > and I tossed out the idea of using metadata.xml instead of mangling
> > the ebuild filename or even sticking it as the first line in the
> > ebuild (as a hashbang or something gentoo-specific, for example).
> 
> Fleshing out more (And to solicit more thought on this idea --
> insane?).

 Thanks for backing your initial thoughs with some more substance,
although I see some fundamental problems.

> Would, to specify them as EAPI=2 in metadata.xml, be encoded as (just
> an example -- suggest other formats):

 In my eyes metadata.xml should contain only non-essential
informational data.  The description of a local USE flag in metadata.xml
is ok, as that text is not really essential for ebuild operation.  I
remember before EAPI 1 that having a default USE flag was some obscure
operation in package.use.default.  A user/developer could be completely
clueless about that feature and annoyed because some USE flag is pulled
in he did not want.  Having all sourcing/install/processing information
near or inside the ebuild makes it easier (I know we still have
use.mask and the like).  Now your proposal moves essential (to the
package manager, where USE flag descriptions are not) metadata out of
the ebuild.
 What if a submitted ebuild to Bugzilla or by mail comes in?  Without
any special surrounding information ("Hey this ebuild is EAPI 5") you
would have to look up in the PMS which EAPI is appropriate or wonder
about repoman's warnings when trying to commit (and I know people who
use --force quite often).  So apart from having the EAPI information in
the ebuild name or inside it there are no feasible options to store
it.  Though I must confess that a user submitted ebuild could strip
parts of the name in his submission thus destroying that EAPI
information, too.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>
Attachment:
signature.asc (PGP signature)
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Using -frecord-gcc-switches
Next by thread:
March KDE Team meeting.
Previous by date:
Re: Using -frecord-gcc-switches
Next by date:
Re: QA Overlay Layout support.


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.