Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:41:09
Message-Id: 20081009024038.06c8b7ef@snowmobile
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses by Steve Long
1 On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:55:41 +0100
2 Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
3 > >> It wasn't about calling it in the wrong place, it was about how you
4 > >> test for whether the ebuild+eclasses provide a function, or use a
5 > >> phase.
6 > >
7 > > The two issues are the same.
8 > >
9 > You mean the three? They all boil down to whether a function is
10 > declared, yes. Have a cookie: you'll need it.
11
12 So if you know they're the same, why did you say that it's about
13 something else?
14
15 > > There are lots of constraints on what the bash side can do that are
16 > > for package manager implementation sanity reasons. The whole
17 > > constant cache requirement thing, for example, is purely a side
18 > > effect of how package managers work.
19 > >
20 > Yes and it's well understood and has been discussed on the list. This
21 > hasn't, to my knowledge, yet everytime something which has /not/ been
22 > discussed is brought up, you rear up spouting on about vague hints of
23 > doom to do with portage, irrespective of how many Gentoo systems it's
24 > built and maintains. You obfuscate and spam the list with 15 mails
25 > instead of simply explaining in one go.
26
27 Uhm. No. My original post explained it all in a level of detail
28 suitable for the issue at hand. Unfortunately, you then had to jump in
29 and expect me to explain twenty other at best vaguely related issues
30 which weren't under discussion. As I've said every time you make that
31 absurd claim, this is not the place to post a two hundred page
32 explanation of how every last bit of the computer works, from electrons
33 upwards, in response to a simple question.
34
35 > IIRC weren't you the guy who deliberately took a troll as your avatar
36 > in order to flagrantly ban-evade and troll the forums a while back?
37
38 Uh. No.
39
40 > > It is of course highly obvious that there are
41 > > several ways of achieving the desired result, and highly obvious
42 > > that there are a whole bunch of factors affecting which one works
43 > > best.
44 > >
45 > Yes, but it's not something we can discuss, I know, because I am
46 > 'obviously' too stupid to understand.
47
48 If you genuinely care about how Paludis deals with the bash side of
49 things, do a little background reading and then post a mail to the
50 Paludis mailing list asking about it. The answer you get will be long,
51 obscure and of interest to maybe three people, and only because they
52 have to know about it when changing things.
53
54 > > As it happens, all three package managers picked different
55 > > solutions, all based upon extremely obscure internals issues.
56 >
57 > I read that as "stuff I don't really understand." No doubt you'll
58 > elucidate over the next 20 mails or so.. I'll get back to you then.
59
60 I realise trying to extend the scope of what you expect me to explain
61 to include life, the universe and everything so you can moan that at me
62 that I didn't include a demonstration of why the sky is blue in my
63 original email is your strategy here, but really... Do you genuinely
64 care?
65
66 > > Which brings me back
67 > > to my original point -- mandating a particular behaviour to enable
68 > > some horrible ebuild hackery that doesn't even do what people want
69 > > would be a very silly decision.
70 > >
71 > You mean the hackery one might use to detect whether a phase is
72 > needed?
73
74 It won't, though, because the meaning of phases and phase functions
75 changes between EAPIs. Which is also something that's already been
76 covered.
77
78 > >> Strange how you think you can read my mind.. I actually think that
79 > >> not providing functions an ebuild might call in a phase, during
80 > >> the actual install, is not such a good way for the mangler to
81 > >> ascertain ahead of time whether or not that phase will be needed,
82 > >> *irrespective* of how any extant implementation does it.
83 > >
84 > > Your premise is faulty. Ebuilds may not call phase functions, and
85 > > never do.
86 > >
87 > Hehe. You're good at that trick: you know full well I don't mean
88 > the .ebuild
89
90 So, uh, if by "an ebuild" you don't mean "the .ebuild", what do you
91 mean? Kindly explain.
92
93 > Is any of that true? Does it matter? What does any of it have to do
94 > with software development? Would you like a full CV, passport and
95 > biometric data from everyone who posts? Who are you to impose that
96 > condition?
97
98 No, I would like you to stop maintaining a "real work" persona and a
99 "paludis bashing" persona. Beyond that I don't care.
100
101 Incidentally, read up on luke-jr (google "gentoo-dev seems to be
102 hacked") if you want to see what Gentoo's view on using aliases and
103 contributions from non-existent people is.
104
105 > You weaseled out of signing the copyright transfer and continue to
106 > wave it in everyone's face at the slightest opportunity. Excuse me
107 > for not being bowled-over.
108
109 Uh. Huh.
110
111 --
112 Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-project] Re: [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>