1 |
On Thursday 28 May 2009 21:52:49 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 21:46:48 +0200 |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > > And just how do you plan to enforce that? What measures will you |
6 |
> > > take to ensure that there's no way for developers or users to |
7 |
> > > modify the repository? |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > I can think of many simple methods. Like a tarball with a checksum. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> ...which a user can modify once it's been extracted. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> > Or a zipfile. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> ...which a user can modify once it's been extracted. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> > Or a git repository. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> ...which a user can commit to without telling the package manager that |
20 |
> the cache is now invalid. |
21 |
|
22 |
So, basically, we can't do anything, because the universe might spontaneously |
23 |
decide to cease to exist. Quite scary, that. |
24 |
|
25 |
Oh, and if you break stuff it is broken. Splendid! |
26 |
|
27 |
Your random distraction at least made me giggle, but it is not relevant to the |
28 |
discussion of a readonly repository. |
29 |
|
30 |
> |
31 |
> > That's all implementation details. But I think we can agree without |
32 |
> > too much pain that it is possible to have a reasonably tamper-proof |
33 |
> > format that we can consider readonly for these purposes. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> No, I do not in the slightest bit agree that there is an easy way of |
36 |
> ensuring that what the package manager sees hasn't been tinkered with |
37 |
> by a user or developer who "just wants to try a quick change out". |
38 |
|
39 |
So things blow up. Sometimes Darwin has to do his work, especially when you |
40 |
climb over two fences, break open a locked metal door and discover that the |
41 |
Ursus arctos is, in fact, a very antisocial carnivore and not as cuddly as you |
42 |
thought. |
43 |
|
44 |
You cannot stop a determined user from painting himself in a corner, but you |
45 |
can avoid most cases of accidental damage. |
46 |
|
47 |
> |
48 |
> > > We can't make changes because the package manager needs to know the |
49 |
> > > EAPI in order to parse versions, since once we make changes versions |
50 |
> > > will be defined in terms of EAPI. |
51 |
> > |
52 |
> > ... why? You're stating one possible scenario as the only potential |
53 |
> > solution again. That ignores the other methods that were mentioned on |
54 |
> > this mailinglist and in other places where you lurk. Please stop |
55 |
> > being so dishonest. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> No-one has provided a viable way of extending the version format that |
58 |
> doesn't require EAPI changes. So unless you're talking about your |
59 |
> "start a whole new tree" idea, |
60 |
Wait, I thought noone had provided a way ... except that one ... argh, |
61 |
cognitive dissonance detected. |
62 |
|
63 |
I'm sorry, you contradicted yourself. Please choose one option only. |
64 |
|
65 |
> which has already been debunked to |
66 |
> death... |
67 |
Weird, that didn't happen in this universe. |
68 |
|
69 |
> > > We want to make changes because, as has been stated several times |
70 |
> > > previously, allowing 1.1_rc1 but forbidding 1.1-rc1 is entirely |
71 |
> > > silly and arbitrary. |
72 |
> > |
73 |
> > See Intercal versioning. Also silly and arbitrary to avoid it, but |
74 |
> > noone has provided a proposal to accomodate nonincreasing and |
75 |
> > nonmonotonic versioning systems. I doubt you would want those allowed. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> No-one is suggesting making changes to match silly upstream versions. |
78 |
But I thought you just said that silly and arbitrary restrictions ... I am |
79 |
confused. You are in a quantum superposition state where you support both |
80 |
sides of an argument and only collapse your brainwave functions whenever |
81 |
someone tries to observe you or something ... |
82 |
|
83 |
> What we are suggesting is making changes to match sensible and |
84 |
> reasonable upstream versions. |
85 |
Which we already have. Excellent, so you agree that we don't need to change |
86 |
versioning. Sometimes I really like discussing with you, because after a long |
87 |
time you suddenly accept reason :) |