1 |
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 07:25:11PM -0300, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:02:57 -0700 |
3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 02:38:02PM -0300, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
5 |
> > > IUSE_RUNTIME is optional for PMs, why does the UI matter at all ? |
6 |
> > > Also, the proposal doesn't assume flags are toggable at will, it |
7 |
> > > assumes they are useflags and obey the same rules. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > I truly hate claims like this; "it's optional, so who cares if it's |
10 |
> > whacky". Think through the proposal; for it to work reliably, it's |
11 |
> > not optional. Same issue I've been y'all over the head with, |
12 |
> > rendered/finalized vs raw/unfinalized deps being stored in the VDB. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > All managers have to write unfinalized if that proposal goes through, |
15 |
> > even if they don't support the optional toggling after the fact. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Why? _Current_ PMs will rebuild the package. The point of this is just |
18 |
> to give them a hint that they do not need to rebuild it. We already |
19 |
> have an implementation actually: one that ignores the hint :) |
20 |
|
21 |
Bullshit. This is optional in the sense of embrace/extend 'optional'; |
22 |
if one PM takes up the new functionality, all have to switch to |
23 |
writing unfinalized deps to the VDB, and all have to switch to |
24 |
transfering that IUSE_RUNTIME crap to the VDB. |
25 |
|
26 |
If they don't, whatever sole/crappy PM that runs w/ this proposal will |
27 |
wind up forcing rebuilds on any packages merged by the PM's that don't |
28 |
do this "optional" glep. |
29 |
|
30 |
Thus rendering it nonoptional since it implicitly is reliant on all |
31 |
switching to the degrade *DEPEND writing that this proposal is reliant |
32 |
on. The blame game becomes "well, you shouldn't use the PMs that |
33 |
don't do this *optional* thing". There in is the implicit lie of that |
34 |
'optional' crap. |
35 |
|
36 |
Claiming other wise is ignoring reality; I called it embrace/extend |
37 |
because this is exactly how that shit goes- sure it's optional, 'cept |
38 |
you're forced to support it (even partially) else the whole degrades |
39 |
and that PM winds up getting blackballed or fragmentation occuring. |
40 |
As far as I'm concerned, any PMS intended proposal must not pull the |
41 |
'should' or 'optional' crap; it has no place in a spec (spec's are |
42 |
supposed to be assertions after all). |
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
> > As for the UI... arguing "but it's optional!" doesn't give a blank |
46 |
> > check for the UI angle. What the plan, more colorization and a new |
47 |
> > char for emerge -vp? Because we're kind of running out of chars |
48 |
> > there... |
49 |
> |
50 |
> How is this relevant ? |
51 |
|
52 |
Um... dude... This proposal is about adding suggested/optional deps so |
53 |
people can inspect/select/enable them per package. |
54 |
|
55 |
You're asking "how is the UI relevant" in light of that. |
56 |
|
57 |
Just saying; it's kind of core to this whole damn thing, else we're |
58 |
just trying to add an optimization hack; either one runs a strong risk |
59 |
of my next response including a joke about elderberries and hamsters. |
60 |
;) |
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
> > It's a simple enough request; one that wouldn't even need to be made |
64 |
> > if there was code backing this proposal; on a related note, hell yes |
65 |
> > I'm wary of having this dumped on manager authors heads and having to |
66 |
> > be told "sort out the mess/make it so". So I'm asking y'all to at |
67 |
> > least put in an equivalent time investment doing a quick prototype. |
68 |
> > |
69 |
> > This isn't an unreasonable request, and has been the norm for most |
70 |
> > gleps for a long while. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> I guess people do not want to invest time in writing code for something |
73 |
> doomed. |
74 |
|
75 |
This is one of the cases where "tough fucking luck" really/truly fits. |
76 |
|
77 |
If it's doomed, consider why it's doomed. I'm not requiring a |
78 |
prototype just because I'm a dick; I'm requiring a prototype because |
79 |
I fully expect since y'all won't listen to what people are telling |
80 |
you, trying to write the code will educate y'all to what we've been |
81 |
saying. This is ignoring that prototypes are bsaically the norm for |
82 |
proposals of this sort (both PMS and gleps)... meaning it's the |
83 |
standard, and y'all are trying to get this proposal special cased. |
84 |
|
85 |
Does it suck you can't just get what you want via writing a quick doc |
86 |
and arguing on an ml? At times, yes. If you believe it's worth it, |
87 |
you do the legwork. |
88 |
|
89 |
If the folks backing this can't be bothered to write a freaking patch, |
90 |
well, I think that's a pretty strong vote of no-confidence on the |
91 |
backers part. |
92 |
|
93 |
|
94 |
> The original request was just to have it 'accepted' so that an |
95 |
> implementation can start. If the implementation is good then make it |
96 |
> final, otherwise amend or reject the glep. This isn't unreasonable |
97 |
> either. |
98 |
|
99 |
Also known as rubber stamp it. And if it sucks, of course it's easy |
100 |
to roll that bad idea back? Right? |
101 |
|
102 |
If the idea was universally accepted and lacked issues, that may fly; |
103 |
that's not been the case. |
104 |
|
105 |
|
106 |
> > It cannot be stacked because y'all are trying to shove this in as an |
107 |
> > optional; unlike it's brother IUSE, which stacks. |
108 |
> > |
109 |
> > As for "ons of others that don't stack"; very few actually influence |
110 |
> > the package manager; ~14 roughly, minimally 5 of those stack (those |
111 |
> > that don't, basically aren't lists). |
112 |
> |
113 |
> So it's not stacked, nothing else to discuss here :) |
114 |
|
115 |
Grr. You're being daft if you think I'll back down just because of |
116 |
some word play and ignoring my points. |
117 |
|
118 |
It *should* be stacked is my view; that matches it's sibling IUSE, and |
119 |
general behaviour for metadata lists. |
120 |
|
121 |
However, that cannot be done if it's treated as 'optional'- that |
122 |
'optional' crap was attempted as a way to glue this onto existing |
123 |
EAPIs. I'm pointing at the metadata issue since 1) that optional |
124 |
requirement results in the metadata key being ill fitting in |
125 |
comparison to IUSE, 2) it's easier to beat on that point then to have |
126 |
to argue w/ y'all as to the fact y'all are ignoring the implicit |
127 |
requirement of this proposal that IUSE_RUNTIME get added into the |
128 |
mainline caches (without it, more PM hacks would be required; |
129 |
additionally, the metadata cache angle is a further example of this |
130 |
being non-optional). |
131 |
|
132 |
|
133 |
> > > """ |
134 |
> > > Package managers not implementing this GLEP will consider |
135 |
> > > the ``IUSE_RUNTIME`` variable as an irrelevant bash variable |
136 |
> > > """ |
137 |
> > > """ |
138 |
> > > 2. introduce additional ``IUSE_RUNTIME`` variable listing names of |
139 |
> > > USE flags related to optional runtime dependencies (without prefixes |
140 |
> > > related to IUSE defaults). |
141 |
> > > """ |
142 |
> > > |
143 |
> > > Treating bash variables as bash variables is rather the norm, |
144 |
> > > stacking is the exception. As I understand it, your only objection |
145 |
> > > here is that you want to see written 'IUSE_RUNTIME gets no special |
146 |
> > > treatment' in the proposal ? |
147 |
> > |
148 |
> > My objection is punting it to the council till it's actually nailed |
149 |
> > down/sane; having them mark it accepted means we're stuck w/ the |
150 |
> > results if it turns out to be shit at the implementation/UI level as |
151 |
> > a lot of us think it will be. |
152 |
> > |
153 |
> > So yes, I want it actually finalized. Bluntly; there's zero point |
154 |
> > having the council comment if it ain't finalized. |
155 |
> |
156 |
> Then the proposal itself should be discussed, not the implementation |
157 |
> details: chars for emerge -pv are irrelevant; you pointed the raw dep |
158 |
> issue in the VDB, that's good, but never said anything as of why they |
159 |
> can't additionally be stored, making this a non-issue for the |
160 |
> _proposal_ acceptation. |
161 |
> |
162 |
> Anyway, without implementation I expect the council to just give a vote |
163 |
> of opinion, showing support or non-support to the proposal; the |
164 |
> proposal will be final only once the council will be happy with |
165 |
> portage's implementation. And I agree, the council doesn't need to be |
166 |
> involved to start the implementation, but knowing this proposal has |
167 |
> supporters will motivate people to do the implementation, vs. not even |
168 |
> being sure the idea itself will get some support. |
169 |
|
170 |
I reiterate; if a proposal needs the council to motivate people, that |
171 |
proposal is fucked- period. If the backing author(s) can't be |
172 |
bothered to do the implementation, it's doubly so fucked. Trace |
173 |
gentoo's history before arguing that one- there is a lot of examples |
174 |
already. |
175 |
|
176 |
You can phrase it, argue it, whatever, all you want, but that's a fact |
177 |
of reality. We've had lots of things get pushed up to the council and |
178 |
get 'approved', ie rubber stamped- and a lot of them went jack-all |
179 |
nowhere because approval != reality, nor does it even mean "of course |
180 |
someone will step up to do the work you refuse to do". If you can't |
181 |
do the work yourself (or won't allocate the time to do so), or can't |
182 |
convince someone to do it on your behalf, the proposal is |
183 |
effectively dead already. |
184 |
|
185 |
The Heinlein "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" quote is dead |
186 |
on in this regard; you want it, do the work. Involving the council |
187 |
just wastes their time, and our time via this argument continuing. |
188 |
|
189 |
|
190 |
> Would you support the proposal if you are happy with its |
191 |
> implementation ? |
192 |
|
193 |
The implementation frankly isn't for me; y'all might manage something |
194 |
unexpected, but I've been laying out- much more so than the people |
195 |
pushing this- exactly what is going to be involved here, and the |
196 |
problems involved and why I've been -1'ing this bugger from day one.. |
197 |
As said, y'all may surprise me, but I expect the implementation to |
198 |
prove my points. |
199 |
|
200 |
And... now the argument will be "well why should we waste our time |
201 |
doing it?". |
202 |
|
203 |
A rather valid question I'd ask in that case is "if you respect my |
204 |
views enough that you'd *skip* doing the implementation if I said it |
205 |
was fucked, why were you freaking arguing and trying to railroad |
206 |
it through the council?"... just saying. |
207 |
|
208 |
The reason to do the implementation is that if y'all think everyone |
209 |
else is wrong on this, do the legwork to prove them wrong, prove the |
210 |
idea works. |
211 |
|
212 |
Arguing on the ML, needling people about "well this would've solved |
213 |
it" (see ciaran's labels behaviour from the last N years) aren't |
214 |
productive. Produce code, or shut up, basically; that's roughly the |
215 |
productive courses of action at this point. |
216 |
|
217 |
I do want suggested/optional depends; I just don't want this mess |
218 |
jammed in since it doesn't solve it particularly well (and that's |
219 |
being generous in my word choice), and the associated cost isn't |
220 |
worth the gains in my view. That simple. |
221 |
|
222 |
Either way, if you'd like to keep trading blows, try pushing it to |
223 |
the council despite people bitching... have at it, albeit by yourself |
224 |
. I've made my points, done with this thread (sparing people more |
225 |
emails). |
226 |
|
227 |
~harring |