1 |
On Thursday 14 May 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200 |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > "You need to know the EAPI to parse the ebuild to find the EAPI" |
6 |
> > Obviously that's not true, because somehow we manage at the moment. |
7 |
> > And if one does a small restriction (which doesn't restrict current |
8 |
> > behaviour because all in-tree ebuilds currently fit within this |
9 |
> > limitation) it becomes trivial again: |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of |
12 |
> > the ebuild starting with EAPI= |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Uh, so horribly utterly and obviously wrong. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> inherit foo |
17 |
> EAPI=4 |
18 |
> |
19 |
> where foo is both a global and a non-global eclass that sets metadata. |
20 |
Interesting, but quite subtly wrong. I'm surprised that you try to slip such |
21 |
an obvious logical mistake in in an attempt to save your arguments. |
22 |
|
23 |
> If you're looking for a formally correct alternative that works in the |
24 |
> way you suggest, I already provided one, and you already read about it |
25 |
> -- and it still doesn't solve the problems that 55 does. |
26 |
And glep55 doesn't solve the problem either. It's neither formal nor correct, |
27 |
plus in this case ... what on earth are you trying to communicate? |
28 |
|
29 |
> > "It's slower!" |
30 |
> > The theory here being that a stat() is needed if it is encoded in the |
31 |
> > filename, but a stat() followed by an open() to parse it from the |
32 |
> > file. Well then, just cache it! You can use the mtime to check the |
33 |
> > cache validity (which means you do a stat() anyway, so with glep55 |
34 |
> > caching it is actually slower!), and then you have to parse the |
35 |
> > ebuild anyway for the other metadata. So the "extra" cost of finding |
36 |
> > the EAPI is ... what extra cost? The only case when it is actually |
37 |
> > slower is when there is no cache because then you have to parse the |
38 |
> > ebuild. But that "degenerate" case will only hit some overlay users |
39 |
> > and people like developers that can wait .3 seconds longer. And ... |
40 |
> > uhm ... to extract other metadata like DEPENDS you'll have to parse |
41 |
> > it anyway. |
42 |
> Where on earth are you getting the idea that GLEP 55 makes things |
43 |
> slower? The only difference to the code with GLEP 55 is in checking |
44 |
> file extensions against a slightly larger set of strings, which is |
45 |
> nowhere near a measurable increase in anything. You're claiming that |
46 |
> checking for a suffix of either ".ebuild-4" or ".ebuild" against a |
47 |
> fixed string is in any way relevant, which is obviously trolling. |
48 |
That is quite definitely not my point. I mean, hombre, did you even READ my |
49 |
email, or do you just apply prewritten text blocks in the hope of solving |
50 |
issues like most "technical" "support" does? |
51 |
|
52 |
> There is no existing version ordering solution that accurately |
53 |
> represents upstream scm branches. |
54 |
Ah. Thanks. At last you say in clear words that GLEP54 doesn't actually solve |
55 |
the problem either. So we can safely keep it buried ... |
56 |
|
57 |
> > A few words in closing - |
58 |
> > |
59 |
> > We can encode all the relevant info in "the first line of the ebuild |
60 |
> > starting with EAPI=" |
61 |
> |
62 |
> No we can't. That's *obviously* completely wrong. |
63 |
> |
64 |
It's obviously quite specifically not. Can you show any case where that fails |
65 |
or where adding this restriction removes relevant functionality? |
66 |
|
67 |
> > The overhead of parsing out this value for all ebuilds in the tree |
68 |
> > has been timed at ~2 CPU-seconds by solar. It's negligible. |
69 |
> |
70 |
> Those of us who have been measuring this have been discarding CPU time |
71 |
> entirely, since it's utterly irrelevant. That you bring CPU time into |
72 |
> this shows you've been deliberately ignoring everything we've said. |
73 |
Eh, I already smashed the disk seek time argument somewhere up there. It |
74 |
amortizes quite nicely. And you are ignoring everything I say just to make a |
75 |
point that is not even wrong anymore. |
76 |
|
77 |
> We all know you're not stupid enough to believe what you've been |
78 |
> posting or ignorant enough to miss the point so badly. So please stop |
79 |
> pretending -- this issue would have gone through a long time ago were |
80 |
> it not for you and your ilk deliberately pretending to be retarded so |
81 |
> you can raise straw man arguments against it rather than addressing the |
82 |
> issues at hand. You're doing both yourself and everyone else a huge |
83 |
> disfavour by acting dumb and assuming everyone else is going to play |
84 |
> along with that. |
85 |
Hey. Wow. I'll keep that to post it whenever you try to insult, confuse or |
86 |
obfuscate issues to get your ideas pushed in. It describes you so wonderfully |
87 |
precise how only your own words can do. |
88 |
|
89 |
Now, thanks for the logical fallacies (I think you've missed at least one, but |
90 |
I haven't been looking carefully) and the attempt at a personal attack. It's |
91 |
quite great, but this mailing list is definitely not the place for it. |
92 |
|
93 |
Now can we please get back to _debating_ things instead of wargharbling? |
94 |
|
95 |
Thanks, |
96 |
|
97 |
el meow |