Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: > > PHP_TARGETS="5.3 5.4" > > RUBY_TARGETS="1.9" > > PYTHON_TARGETS="2.7" > > > > But maybe it would be too problematic? > > What will you do with PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_2 pypy1_9 > jython2_5" then?
That's an excellent point. Thanks! Thinking out loud another round: _TARGETS is an interface by Gentoo, so maybe it would not be such a bad idea to use existing Gentoo identifiers there, ie. (a subset of?) PMS version specifications. Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > > the ruby syntax is problematic in the general case. > > And the Ruby syntax has been devised to suit the _installed commands_ > for the most part: ruby18 and ruby19 are _the commands you run_. This discussion is not about how wise the RUBY_TARGETS syntax is for ruby, it is about if it would be possible to find and use a common syntax for all languages, to make a more consistent Gentoo interface. > We're not going to change it just because. Sorry, what do you mean by "just because" ? I guess that you agree that being consistent and coherent helps acceptance, and that increasing Gentoo acceptance is desirable? If not that's fine, but please say so in that case? It's not clear to me why you are defensive rather than discussing merits of the change and possibilities for a general syntax. :\ Mike Gilbert wrote: > > ruby18 and ruby19 are _the commands you run_. > > Makes sense to me. Look at the bigger picture. If the same process does not happen to work for all languages (I think unlikely) then in order for Gentoo to be consistent it would need a thicker layer for this task than refering to the commands. > We are (almost) doing the same for python, but we can't have periods > in USE flag names. The underscore is a convenient replacement. Inconsistent names are inconsistent.. The underscore replacement is confusing, without deep insight into how all these target atoms end up being converted to USE flags, and I also don't think it's obvious that USE flags aren't allowed to contain periods. > I suppose we could use a hyphen like php does, but I don't think it > is worth the effort at this point. I think it would absolutely be worth the effort for everyone to change to a common, consistent, coherent, obvious syntax, as proposed in this thread, because even though it may be seen as a small thing it will only become more relevant with more languages and packages, and being consistent and coherent would allow Gentoo to make an even better impression. I would like that. The only way to succeed is if everyone who would effect the change actually wants to do it, e.g. because they also think that it would benefit Gentoo. Diego seems to be very protective in general of "his" packages, and he doesn't seem to want to change this, so I guess that this improvement is impossible, if he is the ultimate decision maker for ruby in Gentoo, but I'm not sure about any of that - please do clarify. Thanks! //Peter
