Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:25:18
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers by Maciej Mrozowski
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:09:58 +0200
Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> wrote:
> > Uh, no, that's the entire point of EAPIs. > > This is a common misconception.
Uh, no. You are completely and horribly wrong. EAPIs were introduced to avoid the problems that we used to have where different versions of Portage did different things with the same input (including, but not limited to, difficulties in adding new features).
> From ebuild developer point of view - EAPI specification should > provide all knowledge required to create ebuilds along with detailed > and unambiguous description of what to expect from package manager > that is compliant with said EAPI.
Oh heck no. That really isn't the point at all. From an ebuild developer's point of view, PMS describes (or at least tries to describe -- the case under discussion here is one where PMS probably needs fixing) what can and cannot be relied upon from the package manager. The EAPI feature is used to restrict your ebuild's availability to *all* package manager versions supporting a particular set of features. Not "the most recent Portage version". *ALL* versions of Portage that claim support for the EAPI in question.
> Old package managers and their expected behaviour is irrelevant as > soon as migration path to recent version exists for them.
Again, you are deeply confused. It is required that an upgrade path for old package managers is kept around for as long as possible by not using newer EAPIs for certain key system packages. This is entirely different to what you're saying -- it means that certain packages should be kept at low EAPIs for as long as possible, not that EAPIs are whatever the latest Portage version does.
> Since intended behaviour for normal vs strong blocks is like Ulrich > specified, and migration path to the most recent from first portage > supporting EAPI-2 exists - argument to block specification update is > invalid.
That doesn't follow at all. What happens if someone has an old Portage installed and the migration path includes things that rely upon a changed behaviour? Since you're trying to retroactively define a particular behaviour for all EAPIs that doesn't match what some old Portage versions do, your upgrade path is screwed. This sort of thing really should be in the developer quiz. It's too basic and fundamental for people to be getting wrong. -- Ciaran McCreesh


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com>