Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:39:09
Message-Id: 20081011163854.2381fd29@snowmobile
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Re: [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses by Steve Long
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:45:16 +0100
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> > As I've said every time you make that > > absurd claim, this is not the place to post a two hundred page > > explanation of how every last bit of the computer works, from > > electrons upwards, in response to a simple question. > > > Yes because we really need to discuss transistor logic for this.
Right, in the same way we need to discuss package manager loading internals for this.
> >> you keep making things much more personal than they need to be. > >> I was discussing how and when that metadata is generated. As > >> Harring pointed out, pkgcore does it at a _different_ point in > >> time. > > Funny how that slipped by, isn't it?
What? I already mentioned how there were other obscure internals factors related to the decision. There are all kinds of ways one could do it. As it happens, I don't like the Pkgcore way primarily because it directly encourages the kind of screwups that happened with the first Pkgcore EAPI 2 attempt.
> (and no doubt your sekrit personality on the forums.)
Unlike you, I don't post from multiple accounts or pretending to be several people. (As an aside: if you feel you must carry on calling me a terrorist baby-munching communist or whatever it is this week, please humour me and do it from the account with your real name on it.)
> I mean that crap you came out with about subshell die over a year > ago, and the nonsense you spouted about trap on the dev m-l recently.
You mean the results of having several people try every solution in depth, evaluate them against the way ebuilds are coded and come up with the one that works?
> >> You mean the hackery one might use to detect whether a phase is > >> needed? > > > > It won't, though, because the meaning of phases and phase functions > > changes between EAPIs. Which is also something that's already been > > covered. > > > IOW we need to consider the EAPI, which is what was being discussed > on the technical list.
Yes, which is what my original reply (the one that got you so upset) said in the first place.
> >> Hehe. You're good at that trick: you know full well I don't mean > >> the .ebuild > > > > So, uh, if by "an ebuild" you don't mean "the .ebuild", what do you > > mean? Kindly explain. > > > Work it out, genius.
I'm sorry, I can't work that out on my own. Please elucidate. Help me to understand why you think PMS is wrong with its restrictions on phase functions. -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies