1 |
Duncan wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Thilo Bangert <bangert@g.o> posted |
4 |
> 200905311126.00274.bangert@g.o, excerpted below, on Sun, 31 May |
5 |
> 2009 11:25:56 +0200: |
6 |
> |
7 |
>> the thing is though, nothing constructive is being said. people are |
8 |
>> going in circles. ciaran and co are pushing glep55 for reasons which |
9 |
>> they have stated gazillion of times and nothing new is coming about. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> other people dislike glep55 for various reasons, but they clearly fail |
12 |
>> at proposing a (better) alternative (a competing GLEP). |
13 |
> |
14 |
>> please, please DO write a competing GLEP if you dislike GLEP55. it's |
15 |
>> late, but you might just make it... |
16 |
> |
17 |
> And this is why GLEP55 is likely ultimately going to be approved, despite |
18 |
> all the arguing. At the end of the day, we'll need /some/ solution to |
19 |
> the general problem |
20 |
|
21 |
First we have to agree that there /is/ a problem. "Allowing -rc1 as opposed |
22 |
to _rc1" is "the big one" apparently. No-one answered when I asked why an |
23 |
internal format specification needs to allow this, or indeed more variants |
24 |
on versions. (IME it's *better* to restrict it to one variant.) |
25 |
|
26 |
Again, debian-style epochs (simply a numeric integer followed by : before |
27 |
the usual ([0-9]+) at the start of a version) allow us this flexibility, |
28 |
but as I explained before, this use-case doesn't merit it. |
29 |
|
30 |
They're used in Debian when upstream changes to a non-compatible (eg |
31 |
overlapping) new version sequence. Whether that's needed in Gentoo, or |
32 |
whether they could be used in a more interesting manner is another |
33 |
discussion, which I for one would find a lot more interesting than debating |
34 |
someone's unwillingness to take 'no' for an answer. |
35 |
|
36 |
>, and the proponents of GLEP55 have troubled |
37 |
> themselves to write a GLEP outlining their solution |
38 |
To a non-existent problem. |
39 |
|
40 |
> in some depth as well |
41 |
> as argue for it over a period of /years/, while the opponents have... |
42 |
> troubled themselves enough to argue it for years. |
43 |
> |
44 |
Well I'm actually a bit bemused that we are still discussing it. It's a |
45 |
rank amateur solution to a non-issue, that I thought was dismissed by |
46 |
consensus a year ago. A minority not accepting the majority viewpoint |
47 |
doesn't change that that *is* what happened. |
48 |
|
49 |
EAPI doesn't belong in filename the same way ACCEPT_KEYWORDS doesn't. |
50 |
|
51 |
Or is that the next step, so that the mangler knows visibility from |
52 |
filename and doesn't have to open the cache file? What next, DEPEND too? |
53 |
|
54 |
Getting into a nonsensical debate about PN being metadata seems to be |
55 |
the level of the argument, so forgive me for not being very impressed. |
56 |
(It's externally derived and in fact the whole point of the product; |
57 |
unless someone is proposing losing PN and PV from filename, can we |
58 |
*please* dismiss that argument as the irrelevance which it is?) |
59 |
|
60 |
> A team can have the best rhetoric in the world, but if they don't |
61 |
> actually show up and field a team on game day, they lose by default. |
62 |
> Fortunately or unfortunately, that looks to be where this is headed. |
63 |
> |
64 |
FEATURES=parse-eapi-ebuild-head shows one possible implementation. |
65 |
|
66 |
Personally I favour restricting the EAPI='blah' line (which imo should |
67 |
simply be single-quoted to avoid escaping issues, but whatever: it's easy |
68 |
enough to lex in C, so I fail to see the issue lexing it anywhere else) to |
69 |
before the inherit line _in_ _the_ _spec_ since no-one has given any reason |
70 |
why we should want to do anything else, and afaik repoman will warn about |
71 |
it anyhow. |
72 |
|
73 |
Could *you* explain to us, why that restriction is such a bad thing? |
74 |
|
75 |
In summary: the existing design, including harring's EAPI, suffices for all |
76 |
the 'problems' raised. The most we need to do is specify that the mangler |
77 |
is allowed to extract the EAPI without sourcing, the restrictions that |
78 |
enable this, and that global-scope EAPI functions (including a later BASH |
79 |
version) are consequently allowed. |
80 |
|
81 |
In the meantime, while we've been discussing this for God knows how long, we |
82 |
still don't have LDEPENDs, nor do we have elibs which harring envisaged |
83 |
alongside eclasses and EAPI in the first place. "Broken process" afaic. |
84 |
|
85 |
Oh btw, -scm [sic] suffix doesn't add ANYTHING to the existing cvs. prefix |
86 |
that's been available in portage for at least 3 years; it's a binary datum, |
87 |
either there or not. "Innovation" is not what I'd call all this. |
88 |
|
89 |
-- |
90 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |