1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 11:27:10 +0200 |
4 |
> Tobias Klausmann <klausman@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> Change the spec, then. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> If we change the spec, we can't do anything with the change until we're |
8 |
> absolutely sure that everyone's updated both their ebuilds and their |
9 |
> package manager for it. |
10 |
> |
11 |
Isn't that what the EAPI process is for? |
12 |
|
13 |
The "support every overlay and old version of portage known to Gentoo" |
14 |
is a "straw man" as one hears so much of. GLEP-55 makes explicit mention |
15 |
of waiting for 2008.0 to ship, and Gentoo is ultimately only responsible |
16 |
for the software it ships, including sunrise. |
17 |
|
18 |
Since this is Gentoo, ofc, users will be kept in the loop, and upgrade paths |
19 |
will be provided. It's about the users, or it used to be. (As is the GPL.) |
20 |
|
21 |
>> Actually, I personally would prefer taking it out of the |
22 |
>> parsed-by-bash part entirely. Add it as a shebang-like line at |
23 |
>> the top: |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> #EAPI-1 |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> as the first or second line. Allowing it on the second line |
28 |
>> allows you to later bolt on a true shebang-line if you should so |
29 |
>> desire. Only having to look at the first two lines makes finding |
30 |
>> it out easier (note that I don't call that parsing on purpose). |
31 |
> |
32 |
Restricting (via repoman or equivalent) to first non-comment line |
33 |
means we can use existing ebuilds with a minor edit, which can be |
34 |
automated as part of repoman, with a warning if not -q etc, and |
35 |
makes it easier to find, and to scan for. (I agree, it's not |
36 |
parsing.) |
37 |
|
38 |
> Would mean we'd have to change every existing ebuild everywhere. |
39 |
> |
40 |
>> I was under the impression that it's illegal to change/set the |
41 |
>> EAPI after using inherit. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Nope. It's considered by some to be a QA violation, but EAPI's rules |
44 |
> are the same as the rules for any other metadata variable. |
45 |
> |
46 |
So refine the spec; that's what the discussion is supposed to lead to, |
47 |
remember? |
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |