Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:41:09
Message-Id: 20081009024038.06c8b7ef@snowmobile
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses by Steve Long
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:55:41 +0100
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> >> It wasn't about calling it in the wrong place, it was about how you > >> test for whether the ebuild+eclasses provide a function, or use a > >> phase. > > > > The two issues are the same. > > > You mean the three? They all boil down to whether a function is > declared, yes. Have a cookie: you'll need it.
So if you know they're the same, why did you say that it's about something else?
> > There are lots of constraints on what the bash side can do that are > > for package manager implementation sanity reasons. The whole > > constant cache requirement thing, for example, is purely a side > > effect of how package managers work. > > > Yes and it's well understood and has been discussed on the list. This > hasn't, to my knowledge, yet everytime something which has /not/ been > discussed is brought up, you rear up spouting on about vague hints of > doom to do with portage, irrespective of how many Gentoo systems it's > built and maintains. You obfuscate and spam the list with 15 mails > instead of simply explaining in one go.
Uhm. No. My original post explained it all in a level of detail suitable for the issue at hand. Unfortunately, you then had to jump in and expect me to explain twenty other at best vaguely related issues which weren't under discussion. As I've said every time you make that absurd claim, this is not the place to post a two hundred page explanation of how every last bit of the computer works, from electrons upwards, in response to a simple question.
> IIRC weren't you the guy who deliberately took a troll as your avatar > in order to flagrantly ban-evade and troll the forums a while back?
Uh. No.
> > It is of course highly obvious that there are > > several ways of achieving the desired result, and highly obvious > > that there are a whole bunch of factors affecting which one works > > best. > > > Yes, but it's not something we can discuss, I know, because I am > 'obviously' too stupid to understand.
If you genuinely care about how Paludis deals with the bash side of things, do a little background reading and then post a mail to the Paludis mailing list asking about it. The answer you get will be long, obscure and of interest to maybe three people, and only because they have to know about it when changing things.
> > As it happens, all three package managers picked different > > solutions, all based upon extremely obscure internals issues. > > I read that as "stuff I don't really understand." No doubt you'll > elucidate over the next 20 mails or so.. I'll get back to you then.
I realise trying to extend the scope of what you expect me to explain to include life, the universe and everything so you can moan that at me that I didn't include a demonstration of why the sky is blue in my original email is your strategy here, but really... Do you genuinely care?
> > Which brings me back > > to my original point -- mandating a particular behaviour to enable > > some horrible ebuild hackery that doesn't even do what people want > > would be a very silly decision. > > > You mean the hackery one might use to detect whether a phase is > needed?
It won't, though, because the meaning of phases and phase functions changes between EAPIs. Which is also something that's already been covered.
> >> Strange how you think you can read my mind.. I actually think that > >> not providing functions an ebuild might call in a phase, during > >> the actual install, is not such a good way for the mangler to > >> ascertain ahead of time whether or not that phase will be needed, > >> *irrespective* of how any extant implementation does it. > > > > Your premise is faulty. Ebuilds may not call phase functions, and > > never do. > > > Hehe. You're good at that trick: you know full well I don't mean > the .ebuild
So, uh, if by "an ebuild" you don't mean "the .ebuild", what do you mean? Kindly explain.
> Is any of that true? Does it matter? What does any of it have to do > with software development? Would you like a full CV, passport and > biometric data from everyone who posts? Who are you to impose that > condition?
No, I would like you to stop maintaining a "real work" persona and a "paludis bashing" persona. Beyond that I don't care. Incidentally, read up on luke-jr (google "gentoo-dev seems to be hacked") if you want to see what Gentoo's view on using aliases and contributions from non-existent people is.
> You weaseled out of signing the copyright transfer and continue to > wave it in everyone's face at the slightest opportunity. Excuse me > for not being bowled-over.
Uh. Huh. -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-project] Re: [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>