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: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...>
Subject: Re: Do we want an EAPI 5?
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:22:58 +0100
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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Attachment:
signature.asc (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: Do we want an EAPI 5?
-- Sebastian Luther
References:
Do we want an EAPI 5?
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: Do we want an EAPI 5?
-- Sebastian Luther
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.