1 |
On Tuesday 03 November 2009 21:58:27 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:36:18 +0100 |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > Userpriv I've seen the funny idea to check if UID=0 and such. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Yes, and that 'funny idea' has the added advantage of working even if |
8 |
> userpriv is in FEATURES but not actually enabled (yes, that can happen). |
9 |
> |
10 |
I would consider that a bug. Maybe fixing that bug is easier than |
11 |
workarounding it? |
12 |
|
13 |
> > > > To quote: |
14 |
> > > > "FEATURES is a portage specific package manager configuration |
15 |
> > > > variable not specified in PMS and cannot reliably be used in |
16 |
> > > > ebuilds or eclasses." |
17 |
> > > |
18 |
> > > Makes sense to me atm. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > Makes no sense to me, but then I seem to be special :) |
21 |
> |
22 |
> PMS doesn't document user configuration. If PMS did document user |
23 |
> configuration, it would mean that user configuration file formats |
24 |
> couldn't arbitrarily be changed between package manager versions as |
25 |
> they are now. |
26 |
I fail to see which part of "It's a key-value list, like the old windows .ini |
27 |
files, with comments starting with # allowed" is so specially specific that it |
28 |
can't be documented. But then I often fail to notice such obvious |
29 |
obviousities. |
30 |
|
31 |
> If FEATURES were specified by PMS, Portage wouldn't be able to change |
32 |
> the meaning of its entries without careful EAPI controls. So far as I'm |
33 |
> aware, no-one is in favour of introducing such a restriction. There |
34 |
> are easy alternatives available, and unlike checking FEATURES, those |
35 |
> alternatives actually work. |
36 |
That is concentrated nonsense. You're implying that an ebuild setting (EAPI) |
37 |
can control the package manager configuration. That's so exquisitely backwards |
38 |
and incoherent that I'm having a hard time taking you serious. |
39 |
|
40 |
If PMS defined the existance of a FEATURES variable (like, say, CFLAGS) then |
41 |
the contents of that variable could be arbitrary whitespace-separated strings. |
42 |
|
43 |
Amazingly CFLAGS is not EAPI-controlled and can take arbitrary values, so |
44 |
generalizing that amazing functionality to other configuration variables |
45 |
should be an easy exercise for the advanced reader. |
46 |
|
47 |
Once that is done it can be specialized to a FEATURES variable, which is |
48 |
exactly what we expected. |
49 |
|
50 |
> |
51 |
> > And all my attempts to get it fixed have been deflected, so I'll keep |
52 |
> > ridiculing it until it stops being a failwhale. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Patrick, perhaps you would find your efforts more fruitful were you to |
55 |
> respond to reviews of your patches by fixing the issues raised, |
56 |
I'm trying to do that. And you might want to not patronize me (especially in |
57 |
an academic setting that would be terribly rude, on the internet it's just |
58 |
silly) |
59 |
|
60 |
The fact that there are a few dozen violations of PMS that are bastardly |
61 |
expensive to rollback suggests that harmonizing PMS to reality may be the |
62 |
cheaper method. Trying to bend reality to fit the specification can be an |
63 |
amusing game, but has a very high chance of failing hard. |
64 |
|
65 |
> instead |
66 |
> of using every available opportunity you can find to take pot-shots at |
67 |
> PMS, close off legitimate bugs as INVALID and generally attempt to make |
68 |
> life as hard as possible for those for whom PMS matters most. |
69 |
I do wonder to whom PMS matters. |
70 |
|
71 |
It didn't matter to the eclass authors that littered them with "bad" bash 3.2 |
72 |
features. |
73 |
|
74 |
It didn't matter to QA when they were notified of that. |
75 |
|
76 |
It didn't matter to council back then and is still not high up on their |
77 |
priority list. |
78 |
|
79 |
Can it be that the general population of gentoo developers plainly don't care |
80 |
about PMS? And if we were to assume that were true, why would they do such a |
81 |
thing? |
82 |
|
83 |
So many questions. Almost like those TV shows where you can win a million |
84 |
dollars or a flamingo or a new car. |
85 |
|
86 |
> |
87 |
> Of the small number of patches that have ended up being rejected from |
88 |
> PMS, all but one have been yours, and the one that wasn't was because |
89 |
> the author had mistranslated a phrase. I'd appreciate it if you would |
90 |
> stop to consider why this is the case. |
91 |
> |
92 |
Well, I've not contributed to PMS (like most people) for a long time. Like |
93 |
other people I've known that ANY patch I contribute will be denied. Most other |
94 |
people don't have the curiosity that drives me to try it to prove my theory, |
95 |
so the number of PMS contributors is amazingly small. |
96 |
|
97 |
Added to that it's atrocious language. Might have been better if native |
98 |
english speakers had written it, but beggars can't be choosers. Most people |
99 |
don't have the stamina to read it, much less find all the spots they'd need to |
100 |
clean up to have a small bit of functionality improved. |
101 |
|
102 |
And then why bother when the tree doesn't reflect PMS. It's just futile to |
103 |
work on a "documentation" that gets the basics wrong. And as soon as you read |
104 |
up on prior discussions you find these exhausting discussions that go nowhere |
105 |
... why would any sane person want to spend time working on that? Much more |
106 |
fun to actually fix bugs or write ebuilds. Or play WoW or whatever. |
107 |
|
108 |
But I digress. You didn't actually want to have an answer, that was most |
109 |
likely a rethorical question. Silly me taking things literally. |
110 |
|
111 |
Anyway, chill out, enjoy Christmas, |
112 |
|
113 |
Patrick |