| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:10:20 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:01:28 +0300 Samuli Suominen |
| 4 |
> <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> On 27/08/12 10:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:18:17 +0300 Samuli Suominen |
| 7 |
>> > <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>> >> why leave the ebuild read $myconf from global scope? $EXTRA_ECONF |
| 9 |
>> >> works for this |
| 10 |
>> > |
| 11 |
>> > As far as ebuilds are concerned, there is no such thing as |
| 12 |
>> > EXTRA_ECONF. |
| 13 |
>> > |
| 14 |
>> > |
| 15 |
>> you mean to say PMS fails to document it? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> No, I mean to say that PMS was deliberately written to follow Gentoo |
| 18 |
> policy at the time it was written, which said that EXTRA_* is considered |
| 19 |
> to be there specifically for user use, and mustn't be used by ebuilds. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The way I read it, that was the original point, that myconf was being |
| 22 |
included but was never set, so the only way it would be set if it were |
| 23 |
imported from the user's environment, and that wasn't necessary since the |
| 24 |
existing EXTRA_ECONF mechanism already handles that transparently to the |
| 25 |
ebuild. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
But maybe I'm reading it wrong... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
>> not a problem for users of the official package manager. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Cut it out. The Council makes the rules, not you, and the Council says |
| 32 |
> that PMS, not what works with one particular Portage version, dictates |
| 33 |
> what ebuilds can and cannot do. The whole "waah waah, I'm not only |
| 34 |
> ignoring PMS, but I'm going to post to the mailing lists moaning about |
| 35 |
> it" thing is getting old. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Well, the whole argument is old, on both sides. I agree, PMS is council |
| 38 |
blessed so gentoo devs shouldn't be moaning about it, but OTOH, I can't |
| 39 |
always blame them, when the way it's used is often as a club over the |
| 40 |
head that seems to appear out of nowhere and with no explanation of WHY |
| 41 |
it's that way. That's not exactly the best way to win friends and |
| 42 |
influence people, as they say, so a bit of moaning over it isn't exactly |
| 43 |
surprising. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
You're correct that ebuilds shouldn't be using EXTRA_ECONF as it's |
| 46 |
reserved for the user to use, but all you said was that ebuilds shouldn't |
| 47 |
use it, not why... until AFTER someone protested. Had you said WHY they |
| 48 |
shouldn't use it in your original post, adding all of one additional |
| 49 |
sentence, then the usage of PMS wouldn't have appeared to be a club out |
| 50 |
of nowhere, with no explanation. If that was done /consistently/ then |
| 51 |
people wouldn't have such sore noggins from being clubbed over the head |
| 52 |
all the time, and they'd probably react a lot more favorably to mentions |
| 53 |
of PMS. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
But I DO have to give you credit. There was a time when that information |
| 56 |
would have taken a dozen cycles of back and forth before the information |
| 57 |
was forthcoming. This time it was provided much sooner, one additional |
| 58 |
cycle instead of many, and you provided it immediately upon (not exactly |
| 59 |
friendly, I'll admit) request instead of forcing it to be extracted in |
| 60 |
some laborious process, so maybe you just overlooked providing the reason |
| 61 |
in the original post. Whatever, it's much improved over past behavior |
| 62 |
and you do get credit for that. Thanks. =:^) |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 66 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 67 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives