1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:06:13 +0100 |
4 |
> Steven J Long wrote: |
5 |
>> > Before an ebuild has had its metadata generated, its EAPI is |
6 |
>> > unknown. At this point, the package manager assumes EAPI 0. |
7 |
>> > |
8 |
>> With the format restriction, that everyone last year seemed happy |
9 |
>> with, apart from the few pushing GLEP-55, this isn't an issue. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> The format restriction hasn't been agreed upon, |
12 |
By you. (oh, and your gang.) You're right though, it hasn't been spammed to |
13 |
the list on more occasions than anyone cares to remember, nor has it been |
14 |
pushed up to the Council to vote on, when someone can't convince the rest |
15 |
of the developer community. It just works. |
16 |
|
17 |
> and doesn't solve the whole problem anyway. |
18 |
|
19 |
Only we're not allowed to hear what problem you _think_ exists. You just |
20 |
resort to the Emperor's New Clothes defence. ("I can't explain it, as the |
21 |
fact you don't agree with me, clearly means you're far too stupid to |
22 |
explain it to.") |
23 |
|
24 |
Sorry but those clothes look like rags to me. |
25 |
|
26 |
Shiny you say? Explain it then, as they /still/ look like rags. |
27 |
|
28 |
Or stop wasting everybody's time. Pick one. |
29 |
|
30 |
>> If you have a use-case that actually requires more in a version |
31 |
>> specifier for upstream software, please present it and explain how it |
32 |
>> cannot be represented with the above. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Go and look at all the ebuilds using MY_PV style hacks. Group these |
35 |
> into "necessary because upstream are being silly" and "we're only doing |
36 |
> this because of some utterly arbitrary rules imposed in the early days |
37 |
> of Gentoo". Most are in the second camp. |
38 |
> |
39 |
Please elucidate the use-case, and how the versions cannot be represented |
40 |
within Gentoo, or within the expanded def'n[2] as you were asked to do. |
41 |
|
42 |
If you're concerned about stupid BASH, perhaps you could direct your energy |
43 |
towards better BASH scripting, and not relying on an eclass to do what #bash |
44 |
beginners learn in their first two weeks. Learning the craft is part of the |
45 |
process. I realise openly sharing knowledge makes it harder for you to |
46 |
hoard it. Deal with it, or don't work in Free software. |
47 |
|
48 |
As for "utterly arbitrary" some of the syntax you've proposed is exactly |
49 |
that. Even worse, it's completely cack-handed. That'd be fine if you didn't |
50 |
also insist that everything you dream up is perfectly worked-out and |
51 |
thought-through from the beginning[1]. The combination is quite dangerous, |
52 |
and were this a professional situation you'd have been out on your ear a |
53 |
long time ago. Not storming back after being 'fired' and emailing the whole |
54 |
company with your rants for the next 3 years. |
55 |
|
56 |
>> In passing, I must express bewildered amusement at the idea of a |
57 |
>> format with an unlimited amount of extensions. |
58 |
> |
59 |
> Not what's being proposed. We're proposing giving each format its own |
60 |
> file extension. |
61 |
> |
62 |
No, you're trying to hijack .ebuild. Even cat-foo/blah-version--EAPI.ebuild |
63 |
would be better than this nonsense. |
64 |
|
65 |
It'd *still* be a bad idea for all the reasons lavajoe (iirc) outlined way |
66 |
back when. I suggest you re-read his post from a long time ago. |
67 |
|
68 |
If you want to do a radically new format, go ahead; no-one's stopping you or |
69 |
holding your work back in any way. The same cannot be said for your |
70 |
continued antics. |
71 |
|
72 |
Oh yeah, .exheres hasn't quite got the same cachet as .ebuild. No |
73 |
satisfaction in it, unlike getting Gentoo to 'submit'. |
74 |
|
75 |
I still haven't seen a version that cannot be handled within the Gentoo |
76 |
schema (and I note you were remarkably silent on suggestions that were put |
77 |
to you[2], as you always are if they didn't come from paludis.) If you're |
78 |
arguing no human input should be required, I think you have a |
79 |
misunderstanding of the user-base. |
80 |
|
81 |
Some of us prefer to know that a human has both tried the ebuild out, and |
82 |
gone through repoman. And that that person takes pride in their name on the |
83 |
commit, and stands by the principle of "you broke it, you fix it." |
84 |
|
85 |
It's called a distribution, not "ciara's collection of stuff scraped from a |
86 |
webservice." |
87 |
|
88 |
[1] 'If it is unwise to trust other people's claims for "one true way", it's |
89 |
even more foolish to believe them about your own designs.' |
90 |
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html#id2879078 |
91 |
[You seem not to have read this site _at all_. Correct that before posting |
92 |
again.] |
93 |
|
94 |
[2] "Let's just use a prefix instead of a suffix to indicate vcs, keep |
95 |
branch and upstream for dep specification, not filename, to allow |
96 |
inter-repo dependency for overlays for the few cases where it's actually |
97 |
needed, and add debian-style epochs to guarantee future expansion." |
98 |
|
99 |
-- |
100 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |