| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:17:57 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> 1. "Incompatible change of inherit (e.g. make it look in the package |
| 5 |
>> dir too)" |
| 6 |
>> A case would need to be made, in my opinion, as to why we would wish |
| 7 |
>> to allow this in the first place. The current inherit behavior with |
| 8 |
>> eclasses in a central place works well enough. So I think we can |
| 9 |
>> disregard this. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> There are already horrible hacks in the tree to get per-package |
| 12 |
> 'eclasses'. That's a clear sign there's something lacking. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I haven't come across any horrible hacks, that I'm aware of, but of |
| 15 |
course my interest is only in certain parts of the tree. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>> 2. "Add new global scope functions in any sane way" |
| 18 |
>> This is a valid use case, as seen by the eapi-2 update. But the way |
| 19 |
>> this is currently handled by portage (advising to upgrade the package |
| 20 |
>> manager) works. So I don't see a need to change the file extension for |
| 21 |
>> this reason. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> It means we can't start using those new global scope functions until |
| 24 |
> we're sure that everyone's going to be upgraded, because users get |
| 25 |
> extremely upset if they start seeing that kind of message. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Isn't that a given anyway? I think the way eapi-2 was introduced into |
| 28 |
the tree wasn't particularly problematic. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
>> 3. "Extend versioning rules in an EAPI - for example, addition of the |
| 31 |
>> scm suffix - GLEP54 [1] or allowing more sensible version formats like |
| 32 |
>> 1-rc1, 1-alpha etc. to match upstream more closely." |
| 33 |
>> Apart from GLEP54, I believe our versioning scheme works reasonably |
| 34 |
>> well. I don't see any need to match upstream more closely. I'd rather |
| 35 |
>> like to keep the more uniform way of handling suffixes like rc and |
| 36 |
>> alpha, that we have now. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Please explain why 1.2_rc3 is legal but 1.2-rc3 is not. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Because we say so. We have chosen to do it a certain way. This works. |
| 41 |
It's uniform, it's simple, and therefor has a certain beauty to it. I |
| 42 |
see no pressing reason why we should start allowing alternative forms. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
Ben de Groot |
| 46 |
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) |
| 47 |
Gentoo Linux Release Engineering PR liaison |
| 48 |
______________________________________________________ |
Archives