1 |
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 11:37:07PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
2 |
> On Saturday 15 October 2005 07:05, Brian Harring wrote: |
3 |
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 05:02:02PM -0500, Brian Harring wrote: |
4 |
> > > Jason, your thoughts on this 53 wise? |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > Bleh, pardon, meant .54 for inclussion |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Just to be sure it's clear to everybody (although I think Brian knows |
9 |
> already), my job is not to approve or disapprove of any particular change to |
10 |
> any particular release. If you want to put a title on it, it'd simply be |
11 |
> called "release executor". Hence, the answer to the above question really |
12 |
> lies in the outcome of the .54 thread. The only small perk is that any |
13 |
> suggestions I might have on the release process are quick to be |
14 |
> integrated. ;) |
15 |
Yah I know, but it still is fun punting stuff past you since my normal |
16 |
inclination portage wise, is for things to be a bit raw (progress |
17 |
baby). ;) |
18 |
|
19 |
> On Tuesday 11 October 2005 17:05, Brian Harring wrote: |
20 |
> > That said, their will be an exemption for java ebuilds due to the fact |
21 |
> > that they're blocked by ebuild.sh env handling- they need ebd for |
22 |
> > things to work properly, and in the meantime this gives them a method |
23 |
> > to have things work properly. Downside is that the pre/post hooks are |
24 |
> > not available for users for java ebuilds. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Why exactly would their be an exemption for java ebuilds? Are the hooks |
27 |
> intended to be used with ebuild packaging as well as by users? Wouldn't new |
28 |
> or altered phases serve ebuild packaging better? If it is for ebuild |
29 |
> packaging, wouldn't the EAPI need to change? If it's not for ebuild |
30 |
> packaging, again why the exemption? |
31 |
> |
32 |
> On the user side of things, will the hooks continue on into later versions? |
33 |
> Specifically, with 3.0 supporting hooks on the python side will the bash |
34 |
> hooks be deprecated? It seems reasonable that both can coexist nicely, so |
35 |
> this is more just confirmation then anything. |
36 |
|
37 |
Bash hooks would exist in 3.0; they're user specific hooks only, hence |
38 |
the bit about java being an evil exception till 3.0 comes to town. I |
39 |
intend to lock down the pre/post hooks prior to ebuild sourcing under |
40 |
ebd, so ebuilds/eclasses trying to use those hooks won't be able to. |
41 |
|
42 |
In the meantime, it's a nice abuse of a user feature that makes java |
43 |
1.4->1.5 stuff work, and works fine when 3.0 autodisables it. |
44 |
|
45 |
Regarding EAPI, since it's user specific feature, no need; java |
46 |
ebuilds will have to depend on a portage version capable of the hooks |
47 |
however. |
48 |
~harring |