1 |
Dnia 2013-08-15, o godz. 10:04:47 |
2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> napisał(a): |
3 |
|
4 |
> El jue, 15-08-2013 a las 07:42 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió: |
5 |
> > I'm quite surprised that you attack hasufell now for his valid opinion |
6 |
> > that PMS is not well maintained and does not reflect reality adequately. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Wouldn't be much easy to try to get sets support approved for the next |
10 |
> eapi? (eapi6 I think). Once we get the usual problems, we can complain |
11 |
> but, who knows, maybe (as it's already implemented in a PM) it doesn't |
12 |
> take so long to get approved (or maybe I am being too optimistic :( ) |
13 |
|
14 |
But what for? So far there is a lot of noise but I don't think anybody |
15 |
really decided what he wants from the PMS. Sets are wide |
16 |
and dynamic feature in portage, and it can't go straight to PMS. |
17 |
|
18 |
We need to choose a subset of sets to support, and then define it. But |
19 |
what subset do people really want? Open a separate thread, preferably |
20 |
on gentoo-pms, and start harvesting data. Crystal balls won't work |
21 |
in Gentoo. |
22 |
|
23 |
> > (not well maintained: simple patches take months to get applied, and |
24 |
> > even then often need council interference to be applied. Does not |
25 |
> > reflect reality: Multiple cases like mandating bash 3.2 that we don't |
26 |
> > even have in tree anymore, so no compliance testing possible. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Maybe a quick new eapi bump (5.1?) including this and other small |
29 |
> changes that are quick to implement could help :/ |
30 |
|
31 |
Please not. We have enough mess with all the current EAPIs, sub-EAPIs |
32 |
are only going to make it worse. |
33 |
|
34 |
Also, please remember that adding bash-4 in a new EAPI is far from |
35 |
a helpful solution. The main source of complex bash code are eclasses. |
36 |
If you want bash-4 in the eclasses, you can't rely on it while |
37 |
the eclass supports older EAPIs. So you end up using conditionals, |
38 |
and I really prefer ${BASH_VERSINFO[@]} check for this over $EAPI |
39 |
checks. |
40 |
|
41 |
So, yes, get it for EAPI 6 and near EAPI 7 or 8 we may have first *new* |
42 |
eclasses that could be able to be pure-bash4 (see python-r1 problems). |
43 |
But EAPI 5.1 sounds like a tiny creep that isn't going to do much |
44 |
except for giving us more work to support it. |
45 |
|
46 |
> > Not |
47 |
> > documenting package.mask as a directory for EAPI0 even when that feature |
48 |
> > existed in portage before the initial release of PMS. Etc. etc.) |
49 |
> > |
50 |
> |
51 |
> I wasn't aware of this issue at all, does it have a bug report tracking |
52 |
> it? (for knowing its status, why it is being ignored or bringing the |
53 |
> problem to the council if needed) Please take care that not all people |
54 |
> are aware of the PMS related issues :) |
55 |
|
56 |
And when was it used in the ebuild tree? You shouldn't really expect |
57 |
people to document hidden features of portage that weren't really used |
58 |
at the time. And I still don't see a real reason to have those in gx86. |
59 |
This sounds like a good way to make committing to profiles even messier |
60 |
than it was. |
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
Best regards, |
64 |
Michał Górny |