| 1 |
On Sun, 17 May 2009 04:07:18 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Mark Bateman <couldbe@××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 16 May 2009 21:58:10 +0000 (UTC) |
| 4 |
> > Mark Bateman <couldbe <at> soon.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > "The current way of specifying the EAPI in ebuilds is flawed" |
| 6 |
> > > That is not defining the problem, that is an opening statement. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > That is the problem. |
| 9 |
> No, that is a summary of the problem. Not once has the actual problem |
| 10 |
> been described or documented. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
...except where it's described right at the start of the GLEP, under |
| 13 |
the 'Problem' section. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Until such information is provided continued discussion of this GLEP |
| 16 |
> is not going to progress since words like *obviously* are substituted |
| 17 |
> for actual facts, a substitution which does not provide anything new |
| 18 |
> to this discussion |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You are expected to have a basic understanding of the material under |
| 21 |
discussion before joining in. Although it might be nice to live in |
| 22 |
magic fairy land where everyone has time to explain every single issue |
| 23 |
at a level sufficient for a three year old who does not speak English |
| 24 |
to be able to understand it, in reality we have to expect you to |
| 25 |
understand the basics before getting involved. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> > > However, this is not the only method to determine the EAPI of an |
| 28 |
> > > ebuild that exists and as such the viability of GLEP55 as the best |
| 29 |
> > > solution is brought into question |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
> > Yes, it is the only method. |
| 32 |
> No it is the only method you are willing to accept, there is a big |
| 33 |
> difference. Many people have mentioned in passing other means of |
| 34 |
> determining the EAPI of an ebuild pre-sourcing (thus allowing the PM |
| 35 |
> to source the correct eclass or flag up warnings...) YET they have |
| 36 |
> just been shot down with no actual technical reason, except "they do |
| 37 |
> not involve coding the EAPI into the filename". |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Uhm. Please go back and re-read both the GLEP and the threads. Claiming |
| 40 |
"no actual technical reason" when actual technical reasons have been |
| 41 |
provided is not helping anyone. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> > > Where is it defined that the ebuild must be sourced 1st? |
| 44 |
> > > Why does the ebuild have to be sourced 1st? |
| 45 |
> > |
| 46 |
> > Such things are obviously true to anyone with a basic understanding |
| 47 |
> > of the domain. |
| 48 |
> So you are unable to actually reference any credible source of |
| 49 |
> information to back up your claims then. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Uhm. No. Go and look at how any of the package managers work. Go and |
| 52 |
read PMS. Notice how, by the very definition of EAPI, the only way you |
| 53 |
can get EAPI at present is to source the ebuild. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
> > Please make sure you're familiar with the basics of how metadata |
| 56 |
> > works before commenting any further. |
| 57 |
> > |
| 58 |
> What has my understanding or lack of understanding of "metadata" have |
| 59 |
> to do with my statement that other means exist to determine the EAPI |
| 60 |
> of an ebuild before sourcing said ebuild? This is meant to be a |
| 61 |
> discussion about "The fallacies of GLEP55" |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Uhm. EAPI is, at present, a metadata variable. If you don't even know |
| 64 |
that, what on earth are you doing talking in this thread? Please stop |
| 65 |
wasting everyone's time. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives