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
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
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)?


Replies:
Re: Do we want an EAPI 5?
-- Ciaran McCreesh
References:
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
Navigation:
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.