| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 02:14:06AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> tl;dr |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Shorter version; you very clearly left out option C; "leave it as is |
| 7 |
> > since PMS is filled with warts, this isn't hurting anything, and |
| 8 |
> > changing it will break things." |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Problems aren't solved by ignoring them. ;-) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
True. They also multiply if in trying to solve them, you ignore the |
| 13 |
issues of the problem. :P |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> The point is that currently PMS and Portage behaviour disagree. |
| 16 |
> I think this is not acceptable, otherwise we could as well give up on |
| 17 |
> the PMS and take the Portage implementation as the reference. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yeah, I'm being a bit cracky in biting your head off on this one if |
| 20 |
this is specifically all you're trying to address; discussions I've |
| 21 |
been seeing for this one were to drop the disallowance of -\d$, |
| 22 |
which... per my statements, are borkage inducing; combine that with |
| 23 |
the fact theres been a lot of "lets just ignore borkage" proposals |
| 24 |
lately, and I'm being fairly aggressive/noisy about stopping that. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
First thought, that rule was added because portage was buggy |
| 28 |
internally... none of us actually needed it except portage. Portage |
| 29 |
internals now no longer have the underlying flaw that led to it, but |
| 30 |
instead they've gone and cocked it up so the rules are tighter than |
| 31 |
what PMS requires; honestly, I'd be inclined to make portage clean up |
| 32 |
their own mess rather than keep changing the spec for stuff like this- |
| 33 |
largely out of spite/annoyance. Not exactly great for users however. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Unfortunately, this has been in since at lease cec3c5 (02/10) for |
| 36 |
diffball-1a. Plus the world isn't that nice I suspect |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Currently, the only way such a package would get in is via pkgcore or |
| 39 |
paludis... ie... a PMS compliant manager. Sucks, but if we're going |
| 40 |
to do anything, we have to tighten the spec, which will be annoying |
| 41 |
for parse speeds (version rules aren't the simplest to apply). |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I truly hate having to do that also. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Either way, this angle, have at it, just thought this was another |
| 46 |
"lets drop -\d$ disallowance" proposal, thus the hefty "ah man, not |
| 47 |
this shit again" email. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
~harring |
Archives