Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:53:34 +0100
Steven J Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> > The format restriction hasn't been agreed upon,
>
> By you. (oh, and your gang.) You're right though, it hasn't been
> spammed to the list on more occasions than anyone cares to remember,
> nor has it been pushed up to the Council to vote on, when someone
> can't convince the rest of the developer community. It just works.

You are more than welcome to write up your alternative into a formal
proposal if you desire.

> > and doesn't solve the whole problem anyway.
>
> Only we're not allowed to hear what problem you _think_ exists.

... The ones mentioned in GLEP 55. Which you should read.

> > Go and look at all the ebuilds using MY_PV style hacks. Group these
> > into "necessary because upstream are being silly" and "we're only
> > doing this because of some utterly arbitrary rules imposed in the
> > early days of Gentoo". Most are in the second camp.
> >
> Please elucidate the use-case, and how the versions cannot be
> represented within Gentoo, or within the expanded def'n[2] as you
> were asked to do.

Examples are given in GLEP 55. Which you should read.

> If you're concerned about stupid BASH, perhaps you could direct your
> energy towards better BASH scripting, and not relying on an eclass to
> do what #bash beginners learn in their first two weeks.

Had you looked at the tree before versionator came along, you would
know why versionator was by far the lesser of two evils...

> >> In passing, I must express bewildered amusement at the idea of a
> >> format with an unlimited amount of extensions.
> >
> > Not what's being proposed. We're proposing giving each format its
> > own file extension.
> >
> No, you're trying to hijack .ebuild. Even
> cat-foo/blah-version--EAPI.ebuild would be better than this nonsense.

And you will note that GLEP 55 includes an alternative for people who
think that .ebuild-X is bad but .something.X.eb is fine.

> If you want to do a radically new format, go ahead; no-one's stopping
> you or holding your work back in any way. The same cannot be said for
> your continued antics.

No, I want good, incremental improvement.

> Oh yeah, .exheres hasn't quite got the same cachet as .ebuild. No
> satisfaction in it, unlike getting Gentoo to 'submit'.

As you have been told several times before, Exherbo has entirely
different goals, and I don't consider it to be a replacement for
Gentoo. Please stop your pathetic attempts at trolling.

> I still haven't seen a version that cannot be handled within the
> Gentoo schema (and I note you were remarkably silent on suggestions
> that were put to you[2], as you always are if they didn't come from
> paludis.) If you're arguing no human input should be required, I
> think you have a misunderstanding of the user-base.

You still haven't read GLEP 55?

> Some of us prefer to know that a human has both tried the ebuild out,
> and gone through repoman. And that that person takes pride in their
> name on the commit, and stands by the principle of "you broke it, you
> fix it."
>
> It's called a distribution, not "ciara's collection of stuff scraped
> from a webservice."

What does this have to do with anything? It's entirely unrelated to the
matter at hand.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh