Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:07:21 +0100
> Steve Long <slong@...> wrote:
>> > It's illegal, according to PMS. It also won't work with Paludis,
>> > since phase function definitions aren't made available until just
>> > before that phase executes (there is a reason for this -- it
>> > provides us with a way of identifying whether a package has a
>> > particular phase or not).
>> > 
>> That seems a bit implementation-specific; how one alternative package
>> manager generates that metadata isn't important (though it does seem
>> odd that you think it has to be done at that point) nor should it get
>> in the way.
> 
> 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.

> 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.
 
> 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.
 
> 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. But as you always remind me, I don't know enough to
comment-- because you say so.

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.