Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

[Alec Warner]

> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote:
> Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many
> people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order
> to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is
> only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it
> easy to read through. The existing thread should be used for actual
> discussion about the GLEP and the alternatives. This should be a useful
> experiment to see if we can control ourselves :)
>
> My notes so far:
>
> 1) Status quo
>  - does not allow changing inherit
>  - bash version in global scope
>  - global scope in general is quite locked down
>
> 2) EAPI in file extension
>  - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild
>  a) .ebuild-<eapi>
>    - ignored by current Portage
>  b) .<eapi>.ebuild
>    - current Portage does not work with this
>  c) .<eapi>.<new extension>
>    - ignored by current Portage
>
> 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild
>  - Allows changing global scope
>  - EAPI can't be changed in an existing ebuild so the PM can trust
>    the value in the cache
>  - Does not allow changing versioning rules unless version becomes a
>    normal metadata variable
>    * Needs more accesses to cache as now you don't have to load older
>      versions if the latest is not masked
>  a) <new extension>
>  b) new subdirectory like ebuilds/
>  - we could drop extension all together so don't have to argue about
>    it any more
>  - more directory reads to get the list of ebuilds in a repository
>  c) .ebuild in current directory
>  - needs one year wait

I'm adding stuff to this; but its in my copy of glep-55.txt which I
will probably send out later.  I basically see this as a mix of
options and requirements and thats how I would expect the council to
make their decision.
For instance; if we don't care about backwards compatibility with
older managers than we can enable a number of other solutions that
would otherwise be excluded.  If we want to be able to swap versions
of bash as a requirement; that automatically excludes specific
solutions that don't handle that case.  So in my rewrite of glep55 I'm
attempting to make a list similar to yours and try to convey what
requirements are togglable for each thing.  In the end I expect the
council to:

 - Choose requirements that make the most sense for Gentoo.
 - Look at the solutions that are left that meet said requirements and pick one.

dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/projects/gleps/glep-0055.html for the updated GLEP.

-A

>
> Regards,
> Petteri
>
>