| 1 |
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 04:38:01AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:33:11 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > > * doesn't address versioning changes. |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > Or indeed any change where the ebuild can't be visible to older |
| 7 |
> > > package managers without breaking them. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > So basically it's not a solution at all. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Name a scenario. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> You already named one, and tried to gloss it over as not being the |
| 14 |
> complete showstopper that it is. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Not exactly a show stopper; unknown versions are by and large |
| 17 |
ignored due to paludis devs forcing it upon others. Ironic, that one. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You're also ignoring is that unlike the .ebuild-$EAPI approach, |
| 20 |
this minor refinement leaves open options for replacement, and that |
| 21 |
this option actually is likely far more agreeable then the filename |
| 22 |
approach you've been trying to force since EAPI's inception (which |
| 23 |
thus far hasn't taken hold despite positively massive noise from you). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
One thing I'll note is that the .ebuild-$EAPI approach isn't the end |
| 26 |
all fix to versioning extensions that y'all represent it as. |
| 27 |
Essentially, what .ebuild-$EAPI allows is additions to version |
| 28 |
comparison rules, no subtractions. Each new $EAPI *must* be a |
| 29 |
superset of previous $EAPIs. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
An example would be removal of float comparison rules; for <=eapi-1, |
| 32 |
.006 < .6; Now if eapi-2 stated .006 == .6, that literally means that |
| 33 |
the PM would have to maintain versioning rules per eapi level, meaning |
| 34 |
that for an eapi1 ebuild, what it would match would differ from eapi2. |
| 35 |
Aside from that being a cluster-fuck in the implementation, it's a |
| 36 |
cluster-fuck for the dev trying to visualize what the manager is |
| 37 |
actually up to. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Personally, that's a pretty nasty unstated gotcha. .ebuild-$EAPI |
| 40 |
isn't the end all essentially, it has flaws just the same as other |
| 41 |
solutions. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Marius/genone has advocated it in the past, and frankly I tend to |
| 44 |
agree at this point- versioning rules are a repo level property by and |
| 45 |
large, and the appropriate place to control that is at the repo level. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
So... someone other then ciaran have a comment? We already know |
| 48 |
ciarans views (hard not to when he has 2x greater posting ratio then |
| 49 |
any other person)... |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
~harring |
Archives