| 1 |
On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:08:05 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > There are already horrible hacks in the tree to get per-package |
| 4 |
> > 'eclasses'. That's a clear sign there's something lacking. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I haven't come across any horrible hacks, that I'm aware of, but of |
| 7 |
> course my interest is only in certain parts of the tree. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Read the glibc ebuilds sometime. Notice the 'eblits' nonsense. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> > It means we can't start using those new global scope functions until |
| 12 |
> > we're sure that everyone's going to be upgraded, because users get |
| 13 |
> > extremely upset if they start seeing that kind of message. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Isn't that a given anyway? I think the way eapi-2 was introduced into |
| 16 |
> the tree wasn't particularly problematic. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
There's a difference between the clean "unsupported EAPIs are treated |
| 19 |
as masked" behaviour you get with EAPIs done properly, and the horrible |
| 20 |
spammy errors you get if they aren't. New global scope functions cause |
| 21 |
the latter; new EAPIs done cleanly cause only the former. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> > Please explain why 1.2_rc3 is legal but 1.2-rc3 is not. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Because we say so. We have chosen to do it a certain way. This works. |
| 26 |
> It's uniform, it's simple, and therefor has a certain beauty to it. I |
| 27 |
> see no pressing reason why we should start allowing alternative forms. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
It's an utterly arbitrary restriction. Upstreams don't standardise |
| 30 |
either way on - vs _, so there's no reason Gentoo should. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives