Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55

[Joe Peterson]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> And a file extension is far less obscurely complex than enforcing
> arbitrary syntax restrictions upon ebuilds.

I disagree.  One is exposed to devs only as ebuild syntax; the other is
exposed in an inappropriate location to everyone looking at the portage
tree.

> No it can't. EAPI has to be known before the source can start. Bash
> doesn't provide traps for executing code upon changed variables.

Doing it out-of-band solve this.

> No, it's only needed once per non-trivial change. So we might as well
> just change it for every EAPI.

Huh?  If the "new" portage knows how to determine the EAPI definitively
(and that would be defined), it can deal with the differences.

> And then how do we deal with EAPI 3, where the syntax changes again?

Portage (or whatever PM) reads the EAPI, determines it is 3, and goes
from there.  If you change the way you declare EAPI each time, yeah,
that's a problem, but I'm not sure why that would ne necessary.

> Which is way more obscure, complex and arbitrary than a file extension
> change. And it still imposes massive restrictions upon future EAPIs.

Massive?  Simply a one-line EAPI declaration is not massive nor complex.
 And is more elegant than putting it in the filename.

> Every issue you've raised so far was already discussed and debunked the
> first time this discussion happened. Please read the original
> discussions before continuing.

Debunked according to whom?  I believe that some, including you, believe
you debunked them, but I do not believe there was wholesale agreement
from the dev community.

> We had that discussion when the GLEP was first proposed.

Yes, but nothing was decided, and agreement was not reached.  I'd be
very surprized if I were the only one here who is not entirely satisfied
with GLEP 55's solution to this.

					-Joe
-- 
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list