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-pms
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: gentoo-pms@g.o
From: Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@...>
Subject: Re: Do we want an EAPI 5?
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:48:46 +0200
Am 30.06.2011 19:22, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:43:22 +0200
> Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@...> 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)?

Re: Do we want an EAPI 5?
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Do we want an EAPI 5?
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: Do we want an EAPI 5?
-- Sebastian Luther
Re: Do we want an EAPI 5?
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Do we want an EAPI 5?
Next by thread:
Re: Do we want an EAPI 5?
Previous by date:
Re: Do we want an EAPI 5?
Next by date:
Re: Do we want an EAPI 5?

Updated Jul 18, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-pms mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

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