Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

[Brian Harring]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 05:07:22PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 14:26 schrieb Brian Harring:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 +0000 Steve Long
> > > <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> > > | In process terms, I can't understand why the team working on it
> > > | isn't a pkgcore dev (eg marienz if you can't communicate with
> > > | ferringb)
> > > b) they're more interested in replacing
> > > the ebuild format
> >
> > Pure and absolute FUD; recall which project has added incompatible
> > version extensions, which is dropping running *rm when reinstalling
> > the same ver, which *still* doesn't actually implement overlay logic,
> > leading to overlay authors having to copy master files into each
> > overlay branch.
>
> Please have a look at our code before you make such claims.

Did.  same cpv reinstall issue with *rm still is there.  Incompatible 
version extension (-scm) is indisputable, and still is there.

Other comments, such as not exporting SLOT still stand; one additional 
is not exporting the use conditional collapsed form of RESTRICT (yes, 
it supports use conditionals and must be exported).

Those *are* changes to the format; the statements stand.

Further, getting away from the daft FUD we're trying to 'replace the 
ebuild format' that was leveled.


> Also have a look at our statements regarding overlays again. Overlays
> can't be configure properly. Multiple repositories can. Nobody says
> there should be no sharing between them, but it needs to be configured
> by the user.

master_repository is a new one added within the last two weeks; 
stand corrected.


> > > And what on earth do infrastructure have to do with a package
> > > manager specification?
> >
> > Wolf31o2 (chris) is releng moreso; one of the few folks doing
> > non-trivial things with the profiles pretty much, with long term
> > experience doing so.
> >
> > In that regard, he's one of a few handful of people who basically
> > could be considered profile experts- further, he's a catalyst monkey,
> > which at least currently, is the stage building method.
>
> He said there would be no need for infrastructure to be involved; a
> claim i back. Nobody said Chris shouldn't be involved
<snip>
> Read again, he did not dismiss Chris, he dismissed the claim that
> Infrastructure should send somebody to discuss the package manager
> standard.

SRC_URI restrictions (port, protocol, etc) are one angle of why at 
least poking them matters- really depends upon what PMS is going to 
address, standalone spec, or gentoos form- if the latter, then 
port/protocol restrictions apply, if the former then those 
restrictions need to wind up somewher as an extension of the spec.

Re: dismissing chris being seperate from dismissing infra, yep, 
misinterpretted the phrasing- still would suggest hauling in one of 
the actual profile/catalyst monkeys however since some of the stuff 
they have in there aren't well documented.

~harring