1 |
Duncan wrote: |
2 |
> Steven J Long posted: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> Personally I favour restricting the EAPI='blah' line (which imo should |
5 |
>> simply be single-quoted to avoid escaping issues, but whatever: it's |
6 |
>> easy enough to lex in C, so I fail to see the issue lexing it anywhere |
7 |
>> else) to before the inherit line _in_ _the_ _spec_ since no-one has |
8 |
>> given any reason why we should want to do anything else, and afaik |
9 |
>> repoman will warn about it anyhow. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Could *you* explain to us, why that restriction is such a bad thing? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Me? I'm afraid you have *me* mistaken for someone else, or at least my |
14 |
> position mistaken for that of someone else. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I actually happen to agree with your statement of opinion as quoted |
17 |
> above, now put in my own words, that an in-ebuild EAPI='blah' line (or |
18 |
> similar in-ebuild equivalent, shebangs, etc), suitably restricted in |
19 |
> position and value, complete with single quotes to avoid escaped-char |
20 |
> issues, is sufficient. |
21 |
*phew* ;) |
22 |
|
23 |
btw repoman could easily correct this (given a valid EAPI somewhere in |
24 |
the ebuild) and thus enforce it automatically while not causing the dev |
25 |
any interruption in workflow (beyond a warning.) |
26 |
|
27 |
> Either wait a suitable time or change the ebuild |
28 |
> extension *ONCE* to ensure all actively supported PMs work with this |
29 |
> before the first otherwise disruptive global change (as to say filename |
30 |
> version information, but that's a separate issue), and run with it. |
31 |
> |
32 |
The thing is we don't need to change anything beyond tightening up the |
33 |
PMS. And that's been the issue: that changes to the spec are not accepted |
34 |
from the list, or simply trolled on bugzilla. It's a one-way street |
35 |
(hence the "broken process".) |
36 |
|
37 |
> Plus the in-extension (or in-filename) solution has very similar |
38 |
> restrictions. so it's not about the question of adding EAPI restrictions, |
39 |
> that's a given either way. We can just add them to the existing in-file |
40 |
> solution and get on with the show, with the same ultimate extensibility |
41 |
> benefits and very similar restrictions either way, so we might as /well/ |
42 |
> just go with simple restrictions on the current solution, and be done |
43 |
> with it. |
44 |
> |
45 |
Agreed. |
46 |
|
47 |
> But, particularly if we're going the *single* extension change route |
48 |
> anyway, it's a great opportunity to do any useful cache file format |
49 |
> changes, like say, a single unified metadata file for all versions of a |
50 |
> package, or all in a category, or adding tags or similar metadata so for |
51 |
> instance kmail can show up in both the kde-base and mail client |
52 |
> categories. |
53 |
|
54 |
I am not following why any of those require an extension change? Cache is |
55 |
totally separate to ebuilds. |
56 |
|
57 |
> The point I made, however, was entirely separate, that being that |
58 |
> regardless of one's personal feelings on GLEP55 and the merits of its |
59 |
> implementation, we're likely to be stuck with it, as nobody has bothered |
60 |
> formulating a properly constructed alternative solution. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> As for whether there's even a problem, the council did vote that in |
63 |
> principle, they did see the problem, and I agree, there are global format |
64 |
> restrictions in the current EAPI due to the /lack/ of specifics in the |
65 |
> EAPI assignment rules that ARE a problem in terms of flexibility. |
66 |
|
67 |
So again, change the spec to reflect the reality. Problem solved. Bear in |
68 |
mind that the mangler doesn't even bother looking at the version if the |
69 |
EAPI is not supported. |
70 |
|
71 |
>> In summary: the existing design, including harring's EAPI, suffices for |
72 |
>> all the 'problems' raised. The most we need to do is specify that the |
73 |
>> mangler is allowed to extract the EAPI without sourcing, the |
74 |
>> restrictions that enable this, and that global-scope EAPI functions |
75 |
>> (including a later BASH version) are consequently allowed. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> So you're saying the current solution, with a few minor changes, is |
78 |
> enough, while I'm saying the current solution as-is, is not enough, and |
79 |
> needs at least minor changes. |
80 |
> |
81 |
> I think we're in violent agreement there! =:^) |
82 |
> |
83 |
Yes but those changes are minor and simply to do with PMS. There's nothing |
84 |
portage needs to change, nor are there any implications for mangler |
85 |
developers (it actually makes their life easier) and ebuild authors. |
86 |
|
87 |
> I'm simply adding that whatever one's position on GLEP55 and its |
88 |
> suitability, given that it's remains the only formally defined proposal |
89 |
> after YEARS of debate, it's likely to be the one adopted, for lack of an |
90 |
> alternative. The opposition is demonstrating by its actions that it |
91 |
> simply doesn't care enough about it to be motivated to provide a |
92 |
> sufficiently defined alternative, since it hasn't done so. |
93 |
|
94 |
That's because no change is required, beyond the simple tightening of the |
95 |
spec. Since no GLEP is needed, why on Earth would we bother going through |
96 |
the tortuous process of arguing for one with people who insult us with every |
97 |
line and add nothing else? (in 90% of the replies I get. Yes, that's a made |
98 |
up stat, it could well be more.. ;) |
99 |
|
100 |
And believe me, we get worse on bugzilla. |
101 |
|
102 |
In a nutshell: the GLEP was rejected by consensus last year; the problem was |
103 |
only ever in the PMS, nowhere else. In such a circumstance, no GLEP is |
104 |
required from the "other side." |
105 |
|
106 |
[project] |
107 |
I for one am sick of all the arguing and insults (and yes, I'm aware I tend |
108 |
to give as good as I get;) it's why I went off posting to this list, and to |
109 |
my knowledge it's why quite a few Gentoo devs have left over the past 3 |
110 |
years. |
111 |
|
112 |
Collaboration in my free time does *not* tend to go on being insulted by |
113 |
people who have no clue what they are on about, in my professional opinion, |
114 |
and seem to be more interested in ruining the atmosphere that this list |
115 |
started out with (I recommend reading that far back to anyone who never |
116 |
has. "Manners maketh the man.") |
117 |
|
118 |
The thing is: Gentoo collaboration /could/ be so much more fun, on the list |
119 |
just as much as it already is on IRC. |
120 |
[/project] |
121 |
-- |
122 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |