Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: A few questions to our nominees

[Piotr Jaroszyński]

2008/6/9 Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o>:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:27:56 +0200
>> Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> wrote:
>>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> > No point. A 0 package manager still couldn't use a 0.1 ebuild.
>>> >
>>> That's true, it has at least to be aware the there's an EAPI.
>>> But how does such a package manager handle .ebuild-0 files? Ignore
>>> them? Failing because of unknown files in a package-dir?
>>> Should we care about package managers not being aware of the
>>> existence of EAPI's?
>>
>> Package managers can't do *anything* with ebuilds with unsupported
>> EAPIs anyway. Encouraging package managers to handle ebuilds with
>> unsupported EAPIs in any way just massively limits what can be done in
>> future EAPIs.
>>
> Em, that's really not what I meant. The main problem GLEP 55 describes is
> that with the current system we're limited to changes which don't break
> sourcing the ebuild (since if it would break sourcing we couldn't even find
> out the ebuild's EAPI version and therefore not whether the currently used
> package manager can handle that ebuild).
> That package managers can't do anything else than masking ebuilds with
> unsupported EAPIs is clear.
> But what I wanted to say is:
> Having the EAPI versioned like this: X.Y where X is the postfix part of the
> ebuild (foo-1.0.ebuild-X) and Y the "EAPI=Y" in the ebuild itself we could
> increment Y in case the changes to the EAPI don't break sourcing (again: a
> package manager will have to mask those ebuilds) while changes breaking the
> sourcing of the ebuild need an increment of X to avoid that pm's not being
> able to even source such an ebuild still can mask it properly (or just
> ignore it).

What's the point of sourcing an ebuild that cannot be used anyway?

-- 
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński