Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Do we want an EAPI 5?
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:25:51
Message-Id: 20110630182258.5fb6ab5f@googlemail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Do we want an EAPI 5? by Sebastian Luther
1 On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:43:22 +0200
2 Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@×××.de> wrote:
3 > Am 30.06.2011 12:31, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
4 > > Should we start pushing for a reasonably quick EAPI 5? I'd see it as
5 > > having:
6 > >
7 > > * The stuff that was left out of EAPI 3/4, which is to say :=/:*
8 > > dependencies, and the IUSE_IMPLICIT stuff (especially since right
9 > > now people are breaking the rules and implicitly using 'prefix'
10 > > when they shouldn't, and the rules for (+) and (-) are largely
11 > > useless without the stricter control).
12 >
13 > You shouldn't insist on these two as long as there is no portage
14 > implementation.
15
16 We need the IUSE_IMPLICIT stuff. The tree's already abusing use
17 dependencies in a way that can't be handled correctly by a package
18 mangler without it. We can't afford to continue having a broken tree
19 because of a major screwup caused by the Portage people not thinking
20 things through when they reduced the EAPI 4 feature set.
21
22 Also, Zac's said that if the Council approves it, he'll have that
23 feature done within a week.
24
25 > Are people (ebuild devs) really aware what introducing slot operator
26 > deps would mean?
27 > To make any use of them portage would have to stop updating installed
28 > packages' metadata with ebuild metadata, which in turn means that
29 > updating deps without revbump is going to cause problems for users.
30 > I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it might not be what
31 > people want.
32
33 Portage's behaviour is already broken there -- think what happens when
34 ebuilds get removed.
35
36 > Could you please give a summary (or point me to one) of the discussion
37 > about :=/:*?
38
39 See the original EAPI 3 discussion. It's all there.
40
41 > Specifically, why do we need two of them instead of declaring one of
42 > them the default. And if we want both, what does it mean to not
43 > specify one of them?
44
45 We need developers to be explicit. Neither behaviour is a sensible
46 default, since both commonly occur in practice. Developers must
47 carefully think through which they mean and then write the appropriate
48 dependency. It can't be determined automatically, and it's not safe to
49 assume that one particular behaviour is "probably" what's meant.
50
51 --
52 Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] Do we want an EAPI 5? Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@×××.de>