Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@×××.de>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Do we want an EAPI 5?
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:49:55
Message-Id: 4E0CC50E.2040002@gmx.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Do we want an EAPI 5? by Ciaran McCreesh
Am 30.06.2011 19:22, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:43:22 +0200 > Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@×××.de> wrote: >> Am 30.06.2011 12:31, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: >>> Should we start pushing for a reasonably quick EAPI 5? I'd see it as >>> having: >>> >>> * The stuff that was left out of EAPI 3/4, which is to say :=/:* >>> dependencies, and the IUSE_IMPLICIT stuff (especially since right >>> now people are breaking the rules and implicitly using 'prefix' >>> when they shouldn't, and the rules for (+) and (-) are largely >>> useless without the stricter control). >> >> You shouldn't insist on these two as long as there is no portage >> implementation. > > We need the IUSE_IMPLICIT stuff. The tree's already abusing use > dependencies in a way that can't be handled correctly by a package > mangler without it. We can't afford to continue having a broken tree > because of a major screwup caused by the Portage people not thinking > things through when they reduced the EAPI 4 feature set. > > Also, Zac's said that if the Council approves it, he'll have that > feature done within a week.
In this case, ignore me on this one.
> >> Are people (ebuild devs) really aware what introducing slot operator >> deps would mean? >> To make any use of them portage would have to stop updating installed >> packages' metadata with ebuild metadata, which in turn means that >> updating deps without revbump is going to cause problems for users. >> I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it might not be what >> people want. > > Portage's behaviour is already broken there -- think what happens when > ebuilds get removed. >
I know. I'm not opposed to this change, but the needed work flow change for ebuild devs has to be communicated.
>> Could you please give a summary (or point me to one) of the discussion >> about :=/:*? > > See the original EAPI 3 discussion. It's all there. >
Yeah, the whole discussion is there, but not a summary. I don't have the time to wade through all these mails.
>> Specifically, why do we need two of them instead of declaring one of >> them the default. And if we want both, what does it mean to not >> specify one of them? > > We need developers to be explicit. Neither behaviour is a sensible > default, since both commonly occur in practice. Developers must > carefully think through which they mean and then write the appropriate > dependency. It can't be determined automatically, and it's not safe to > assume that one particular behaviour is "probably" what's meant. >
Isn't it desirable that different PMs handle the "no operator" case in the same way (independently of the question of having one or both operators available)?

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] Do we want an EAPI 5? Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>