Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:15:12
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales by Brian Harring
1 On Friday 11 of December 2009 09:17:54 Brian Harring wrote:
2 > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:27:30PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
3 > > * Don't mess with kdebuild until you're sure that no-one has any
4 > > kdebuild packages installed.
5 >
6 > I'm not looking to start a fight, and frankly after a year or so I've
7 > learned to just subconsciously/automatically ignore kdebuild, but why
8 > exactly must this be in pms?
9 >
10 > It's experimental w/ low user acceptance, and was fundamentally
11 > outside the gentoo mainstream. If long term maintenance of it is
12 > desired for anyone who hasn't yet punted those ebuilds from their
13 > vdb, maintain it in a branch rather then the effective head (don't
14 > make the mainline suffer maintenance for something that was outside
15 > mainline).
16 >
17 > My two cents mind you- at this point, flipping through the source, the
18 > kdebuild bits disrupt the flow from my view (and more importantly the
19 > resultant read of it due to folks trying to structure the text to be
20 > agnostic to non-kdebuild), more importantly doing so w/ minimal gain
21 > for the mainstream.
22 >
23 > Either way, take it as a +1 for punting it from mainstream and making
24 > the kdebuild specific folk maintain their own branch rather then
25 > general eapi (gentoo specific) having to maintain it. Branching of
26 > this sort is presumably one of the reasons pms uses a dvcs after all.
27 >
28 > And to head off one angle of argument, I fully expect if I ever get
29 > ambitious enough to derive an eapi extension that I'll have to
30 > maintain it outside of pms mainline- being nonstandard, I'd expect
31 > nothing less (hence the +1 for punting kdebuild).
32 >
33 > My two cents either way, and well aware it's probably not something
34 > everyone wants to hear.
35 >
36 > Not a hard +1 since I've zero interest in a fight also, but a +1
37 > either way.
38 >
39 > Sorry, but tis my views.
40 > ~harring
42 PMS document is meant to provide information that can be relied upon.
43 kdebuild-1 was used only during short period of time two years ago and only
44 supported by one package manager. Gentoo KDE team has already expressed no
45 interest in kdebuild-1 long time ago as well[1].
46 That being said kdebuild-1 can no longer be relied upon as a effective
47 specification - it does not have implementation in official package manager
48 and no new kdebuild-1 is going to be created ever by any Gentoo project - it's
49 effectively dead besides all known .
50 Also, what's the most important - any official packages in kdebuild-1 format
51 has already been replaced (with no loss of functionality, we're talking about
52 KDE 4 ebuilds here) by official packages in EAPI-2 format - format supported
53 by three most popular package managers and users as advised to migrate (if
54 they haven't already) to those packages.
55 Otherwise they're unsupported anyway - and PMS needs to document things that
56 are supported and can be relied upon.
58 There's anything more to add - kdebuild-1 PMS specification should be
59 maintained by those interested in separate git branch, and completely removed
60 from PMS trunk as it only serves as LaTeX code obfuscator.
64 On behalf of Gentoo KDE
66 --
67 regards
68 MM


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>