1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:07:21 +0100 |
4 |
> Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
5 |
>> > It's illegal, according to PMS. It also won't work with Paludis, |
6 |
>> > since phase function definitions aren't made available until just |
7 |
>> > before that phase executes (there is a reason for this -- it |
8 |
>> > provides us with a way of identifying whether a package has a |
9 |
>> > particular phase or not). |
10 |
>> > |
11 |
>> That seems a bit implementation-specific; how one alternative package |
12 |
>> manager generates that metadata isn't important (though it does seem |
13 |
>> odd that you think it has to be done at that point) nor should it get |
14 |
>> in the way. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> The whole point of PMS is that it provides a way to avoid relying upon |
17 |
> implementation specific things. There are currently no packages that |
18 |
> rely upon calling phase functions in the wrong place |
19 |
It wasn't about calling it in the wrong place, it was about how you test for |
20 |
whether the ebuild+eclasses provide a function, or use a phase. |
21 |
|
22 |
> and there are |
23 |
> good reasons a package manager might want to avoid implementing things |
24 |
> in a way such that doing so is legal, so we don't allow it. |
25 |
> |
26 |
Sure let's keep constraining what the bash side of things can do, as that's |
27 |
nothing to do with the package manager implementation. |
28 |
|
29 |
> Also, I don't think it has to be done at that point. I think it's |
30 |
> convenient to do it at that point, and when combined with several other |
31 |
> reasons doing it that way is the best option. |
32 |
> |
33 |
Yes, a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in pure bullsh^W obfuscation is |
34 |
always such fun. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Strange how you repeatedly seem to pop up in favour of doing whatever |
37 |
> you think will cause most inconvenience to Paludis, though... |
38 |
> |
39 |
Strange how you think you can read my mind.. I actually think that not |
40 |
providing functions an ebuild might call in a phase, during the actual |
41 |
install, is not such a good way for the mangler to ascertain ahead of time |
42 |
whether or not that phase will be needed, *irrespective* of how any extant |
43 |
implementation does it. But as you always remind me, I don't know enough to |
44 |
comment-- because you say so. |
45 |
|
46 |
I actually hesitated to get into that discussion with you. I did so as I |
47 |
wanted to query the design decision. You know, a technical _discussion_.. |
48 |
Thanks for reminding me again how incapable of that you are, unless you |
49 |
think there is some political capital to be gained. |