| 1 |
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:17:57 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> 1. "Incompatible change of inherit (e.g. make it look in the package |
| 4 |
> dir too)" |
| 5 |
> A case would need to be made, in my opinion, as to why we would wish |
| 6 |
> to allow this in the first place. The current inherit behavior with |
| 7 |
> eclasses in a central place works well enough. So I think we can |
| 8 |
> disregard this. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
There are already horrible hacks in the tree to get per-package |
| 11 |
'eclasses'. That's a clear sign there's something lacking. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> 2. "Add new global scope functions in any sane way" |
| 14 |
> This is a valid use case, as seen by the eapi-2 update. But the way |
| 15 |
> this is currently handled by portage (advising to upgrade the package |
| 16 |
> manager) works. So I don't see a need to change the file extension for |
| 17 |
> this reason. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It means we can't start using those new global scope functions until |
| 20 |
we're sure that everyone's going to be upgraded, because users get |
| 21 |
extremely upset if they start seeing that kind of message. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> 3. "Extend versioning rules in an EAPI - for example, addition of the |
| 24 |
> scm suffix - GLEP54 [1] or allowing more sensible version formats like |
| 25 |
> 1-rc1, 1-alpha etc. to match upstream more closely." |
| 26 |
> Apart from GLEP54, I believe our versioning scheme works reasonably |
| 27 |
> well. I don't see any need to match upstream more closely. I'd rather |
| 28 |
> like to keep the more uniform way of handling suffixes like rc and |
| 29 |
> alpha, that we have now. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Please explain why 1.2_rc3 is legal but 1.2-rc3 is not. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives