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.