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-project
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-project: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-project@g.o
From: Steve Long <slong@...>
Subject: [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:55:41 +0100
*Sigh* Guess it's that time of year again..

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Steve Long <slong@...> wrote:
>> > The whole point of PMS is that it provides a way to avoid relying
>> > upon implementation specific things. There are currently no
>> > packages that rely upon calling phase functions in the wrong place
>>
>> It wasn't about calling it in the wrong place, it was about how you
>> test for whether the ebuild+eclasses provide a function, or use a
>> phase.
> 
> The two issues are the same.
>
You mean the three? They all boil down to whether a function is declared,
yes. Have a cookie: you'll need it.
 
>> > and there are
>> > good reasons a package manager might want to avoid implementing
>> > things in a way such that doing so is legal, so we don't allow it.
>>
>> Sure let's keep constraining what the bash side of things can do, as
>> that's nothing to do with the package manager implementation.
> 
> There are lots of constraints on what the bash side can do that are
> for package manager implementation sanity reasons. The whole
> constant cache requirement thing, for example, is purely a side effect
> of how package managers work.
>
Yes and it's well understood and has been discussed on the list. This
hasn't, to my knowledge, yet everytime something which has /not/ been
discussed is brought up, you rear up spouting on about vague hints of doom
to do with portage, irrespective of how many Gentoo systems it's built and
maintains. You obfuscate and spam the list with 15 mails instead of simply
explaining in one go. Finally when someone pleads for sanity, you might
turn around and explain wtf you're on about, and half the time it's
rubbish; only everyone who can argue the point has got too tired of the
thread, already has you in a killfile, or already gave up on the list or
Gentoo because of you, and the shitstorm you generate.
 
>> > Also, I don't think it has to be done at that point. I think it's
>> > convenient to do it at that point, and when combined with several
>> > other reasons doing it that way is the best option.
>> >
>> Yes, a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in pure bullsh^W
>> obfuscation is always such fun.
> 
> We were discussing your trollish claim that I thought that things had to
> be done a particular way.

No you were; 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.

IIRC weren't you the guy who deliberately took a troll as your avatar in
order to flagrantly ban-evade and troll the forums a while back? Since
we're discussing personality; at face sight it seems hypocritical, but then
you always have been quick to call others on behaviour you enjoy using,
even when it's not actually happening. Guess you must be a l337 uber-troll
or sth.. that's true trolling, to play the rules against everyone and cause
as much confusion as possible. Much better than simply being a dicq and
getting kicked out. Oh, wait..

> It is of course highly obvious that there are 
> several ways of achieving the desired result, and highly obvious that
> there are a whole bunch of factors affecting which one works best.
>
Yes, but it's not something we can discuss, I know, because I am 'obviously'
too stupid to understand.
 
> As it happens, all three package managers picked different solutions,
> all based upon extremely obscure internals issues.

I read that as "stuff I don't really understand." No doubt you'll elucidate
over the next 20 mails or so.. I'll get back to you then.

> Which brings me back 
> to my original point -- mandating a particular behaviour to enable some
> horrible ebuild hackery that doesn't even do what people want would be
> a very silly decision.
>
You mean the hackery one might use to detect whether a phase is needed?
 
>> > Strange how you repeatedly seem to pop up in favour of doing
>> > whatever you think will cause most inconvenience to Paludis,
>> > though...
>> > 
>> Strange how you think you can read my mind.. I actually think that not
>> providing functions an ebuild might call in a phase, during the actual
>> install, is not such a good way for the mangler to ascertain ahead of
>> time whether or not that phase will be needed, *irrespective* of how
>> any extant implementation does it.
> 
> Your premise is faulty. Ebuilds may not call phase functions, and
> never do.
>
Hehe. You're good at that trick: you know full well I don't mean the .ebuild

>> I actually hesitated to get into that discussion with you. I did so
>> as I wanted to query the design decision. You know, a technical
>> _discussion_.. Thanks for reminding me again how incapable of that
>> you are, unless you think there is some political capital to be
>> gained.
> 
> If you want a technical discussion, post using your other account with
> your real name on it, not your sockpuppet. It's a bit hard to take you
> seriously when you maintain two personas, one for real development and
> an alterego for Pkgcore fanboyism / Paludis bashing.
> 
Hmm how can I illustrate this wider point to you?

Ciaran: it's clear everytime the new academic year starts, your post count
ramps right up and pisses everyone off. I do hope that this year, what with
your leaving University and having to be taken under your Dad's wing due to
your mental illness, you don't go overboard and take out even more of your
frustration on the rest of us.

Is any of that true? Does it matter? What does any of it have to do with
software development? Would you like a full CV, passport and biometric data
from everyone who posts? Who are you to impose that condition?

You weaseled out of signing the copyright transfer and continue to wave it
in everyone's face at the slightest opportunity. Excuse me for not being
bowled-over.

BTW: stop telling me what to do: I'm mighty bored of it; your pronouncements
only sound dramatic in your own head: no-one else really cares that much.
*You* certainly don't get to impose /any/ conditions on me; you can only
_ask_ the moderators that I be held to a certain standard of behaviour,
taking into account the cultural norms, and the context.

I look forward to the userrel bug. Mind if I get on with software now?




Oh well, tough.

The bit that really gets me is you think I'm a pkgcore fanboi; portage all
the way, twat.

Steven James Long: nobody's puppet, least of all /that/ troll's.




Replies:
Re: [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses
-- Ciaran McCreesh
References:
[project] Re: Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses
-- Steve Long
Re: [project] Re: Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-project: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: [project] Re: Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses
Next by thread:
Re: [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses
Previous by date:
Re: [project] Re: Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses
Next by date:
Re: [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-project mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.