Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: pacho@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:31:55
Message-Id: 20130815133142.4c9b4fd5@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree by Pacho Ramos
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature