On Sunday 20 September 2009 18:34:12 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:21:48 +0200
> Patrick Lauer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > > First change: the test phase is only run when enabled. Since PMS
> > > > doesn't document FEATURES yet we can only say "if tests are
> > > > enabled" instead of being more precise. Well, defining FEATURES
> > > > shouldn't be too hard, but that's for another day.
> > >
> > > Please cross-reference that to the part where we explain that
> > > src_test is run at user option.
> > I fail to find such a thing in current PMS.
> Grep for 'src-test-required', and bear in mind what I said about "so
> that the user option part is explained even if kdebuild is disabled".
Oh. That's well hidden and not visible to the normal reader. You naughty boy!
> That language really should be in even if kdebuild is turned off,
> especially if we're explicitly stating that src_test is optional.
Needs to have FEATURES defined first, otherwise we'll be defining a specific
configuration in abstract generalities.
> > > You might also want to tidy up the language on
> > > that so that the user option part is explained even if kdebuild is
> > > disabled.
> > I suggest we do as you suggested yesterday and remove kdebuild
> > unconditionally. That saves hacking around something that cannot be
> > in the final version anyway.
> I suggest you stop trying to push a political agenda when doing so just
> makes life harder for the people who have to use PMS.
Uhm what. I thought we had all found an agreement yesterday that having
kdebuild in PMS was a bad thing. If you keep changing your opinion every day
there's no way to have a reasonable discussion.
> > > Actually, this one's a bit of a mess, thanks to Portage making a
> > > non-EAPI-controlled order change that was supposed to go in in EAPI
> > > 2 but didn't.
> > Yeah, messy thing. But as you are well aware there was no sane way to
> > make that change EAPI-dependant without causing ambiguous situation
> > and much more confusion.
> Actually, there was a perfectly clean way of doing it, and Zac even
> agreed to do it that way before he went and implemented it
> unconditionally. The change was supposed to be going through as part of
> EAPI 2.
Nah, that makes a huge stinky if you try to upgrade an EAPI0 package with an
EAPI2 package or vice versa. Then you end up with a dozen potential ways of
doing it, choose one randomly and hope that was a sane decision.
Having a consistent phase order is the only way to keep things predictable ...
> That's not how the system works. We're supposed to be documenting what
> ebuilds may rely upon from compliant package managers. Since there are
> compliant package managers that use both behaviours, the
> documentation's supposed to reflect that.
Hrm. All versions of all officially supported package managers I can see use
the "newer" behaviour. So the "old" behaviour might be interesting for
historical reasons, but anything currently in use is forced to rely on the
> > Feel free to document historic behaviour if you want, but as PMS
> > hasn't documented it before I'd put it in the errata section.
> Doesn't PMS currently document the old way of doing it, not the new way?
See, that's what happens when you don't document what is actually happening.
Now you are confused, I'm slightly confused and we can't even discuss basic
As far as I can tell current PMS documents the new behaviour. At least that's
the impression I get from comparing older versions of it to the current state
and looking at previous discussions. Unless I got things backwards again
because they aren't documented properly.
Either way there's a lot that needs to be done until PMS deserves the S in its
name, but it's not hopeless. At least we're noticing the things it doesn't
document or doesn't document correctly quite nicely.