On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 05:50:11 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You pretty much have to have a way of mapping an EAPI version onto
> > an absolute version if you want to handle it sanely.
>
> Right, and that's likely to cause a mess in the long run IMO.
Eh, it's already necessary if
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:40:57 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:33:51 +0100
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is
> > a blocker for me)
>
> That already happened with EAPI 1 and sl
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:09:33 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:46:06 +0100
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The issue is with comparison rules. For the current use case that's
> > not an issue as it's simply a superset, so we could just use the
On Monday 31 of December 2007 15:33:51 Marius Mauch wrote:
> Still doesn't address my concerns, namely:
> - silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is a
> blocker for me)
And what is the reason for not doing exactly that? Seems logical to me. And
btw. slot deps added in E
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:46:06 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue is with comparison rules. For the current use case that's
> not an issue as it's simply a superset, so we could just use the new
> rules for everything. But if the rules are changed in an incompatible
> way, whic
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:03:12 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:26:27 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager has
> > > to export to an ebuild/eclass. That i
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:33:51 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is
> a blocker for me)
That already happened with EAPI 1 and slot deps.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:43:10 +0100
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have updated the GLEP, hopefully it is less confusing now and hence the
> discussion
> will be more technical.
Still doesn't address my concerns, namely:
- silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond e
On Dec 28, 2007 1:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:25:13 +0100
> "Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 2007 1:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There's no particular reason that new
> > > version formats can'
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:25:13 +0100
"Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2007 1:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's no particular reason that new
> > version formats can't be introduced in a new EAPI so long as the
> > version strings don't appear in
On Dec 28, 2007 1:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's no particular reason that new
> version formats can't be introduced in a new EAPI so long as the
> version strings don't appear in ebuilds using older EAPIs or in
> profiles. Ditto for naming rules.
>
Errr... so should
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:26:27 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager has
> > to export to an ebuild/eclass. That includes syntax and semantics
> > of exported and expected functions and variables (IOW th
On Dec 27, 2007 11:40 PM, Doug Klima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[... EAPI is stuff PM supports/exports to the ebuild ...]
> Logical and proper to me.
Actually, when I'm asked what EAPI is, I just say "EAPI is a standard
definition for the ebuild structure, implying supporting features from
the pac
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:10:13 +0100
>> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ok, that seems a fine definition of what an eapi is. Everybody agrees on it?
>>>
>> Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager h
Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:10:13 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Ok, that seems a fine definition of what an eapi is. Everybody agrees on it?
>
> Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager has to export
> to an ebuild/eclass. That includ
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:28:41 +0100
Michael Haubenwallner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This also could be done as (using 'ebuild' instead of 'emerge')
>
> #! /usr/bin/env ebuild.1
>
> and PM could provide some 'ebuild.1' executable, at the bare mimimum
> doing nothing but
>
> #! /
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 20:48 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:22:22 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
> > something like
> >
> > #!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
>
> Unfortunately the "
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:55:06 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Stuck ranges into metadata.xml for which EAPIs applied?
> > >
> > > No package manager required information can be in XML format.
> >
> > Says who? Us. We can change that, if we decide it's the best answer.
> >
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:22:22 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
> something like
>
> #!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
Unfortunately the "emerge --eapi $foo" part would be passed as a single
argument to /usr/bi
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:10:13 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, that seems a fine definition of what an eapi is. Everybody agrees on it?
Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager has to export
to an ebuild/eclass. That includes syntax and semantics of expor
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:54:16 +0100
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007/12/23, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > a) It's a massive restriction on what future ebuilds can do.
>
> - it handles a reasonnable range of likely future EAPIs,
It doesn't, though
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:19:45 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>>> On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
So please make those people understand, so they can comment
usefully.
>>> Are we in the elementary
On 2007/12/23, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) It's a massive restriction on what future ebuilds can do.
- it handles a reasonnable range of likely future EAPIs,
- it includes the "extension changes when the way to extract EAPI
has to change" to avoid bounding future EAPIs to th
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:23:13 +0100
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007/12/22, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The filename solution is by far the best -- it's the only one that
> > hasn't had any technical objections raised to it.
>
> And can you remin
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:24:06 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not if we move the rsync path properly so
>>
>> - older pm sync to a minimal try apt to upgrading portage and nothing
>> else
>>
>> - newer sync to the full tree now supporting the newer an bett
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> Their docs are usually the source.
And files under Documentation
And they have a policy which requires them to write a doc for any new
feature/functionality to be accepted
--
Zhang Le, Robert
GPG key ID: 1E4E2973
Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 01:14:46AM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 04:58:28PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
> >>> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, what is more ridiculous is
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 18:56:12 Daniel Drake wrote:
> Why (in terms of your GLEP) are you still allowing ebuilds to set EAPI
> inside the ebuild?
>
> It seems that one approach you might take is to move the EAPI selection
> into the filename and remove it from the ebuild itself, and it's n
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:49:32 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When a new version comes out, we should educate developers about it
>> and encourage them to convert their ebuilds to use new EAPI.
>
> No, we shouldn't. People should use new EAPIs as necessary, n
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
I have updated the GLEP, hopefully it is less confusing now and hence
the discussion will be more technical.
As I still didn't get the "ok to commit" from our glep folks, read the
most current version here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html
http://dev.gent
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Zhang Le wrote:
>> Zhang Le wrote:
>>> I have just created a page of EAPI on wikipedia, let's improve it together.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAPI
>> And later convert it to guidexml and put it on gentoo.org, of course.
>
> Wikipedia uses GFDL while we use CC-BY-SA, so n
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 04:58:28PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
>>> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other to be quiet in a
discussion which is supposed t
Hello,
I have updated the GLEP, hopefully it is less confusing now and hence the
discussion will be more technical.
As I still didn't get the "ok to commit" from our glep folks, read the most
current version here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html
http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-005
On 2007/12/22, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The filename solution is by far the best -- it's the only one that
> hasn't had any technical objections raised to it.
And can you remind us what technical objection, if any, has been raised
against the "EAPI set in contents with enough
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 09:09:27 Zhang Le wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
> >> So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
> >
> > Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
>
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:37:37 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:01:23 +0800
> > Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Luca Barbato wrote:
> >>> Still I think we should just postpone this discussion and get a
> >>> 2008.0 out.
> >> And po
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:53:48 +
Simon Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As one of those 'users' (an AT actually), I would find having the eapi
> in the filename quite annoying - especially having several ebuilds in
> the tree that differ _only_ in their eapi number (and doing different
> thing
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:49:32 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When a new version comes out, we should educate developers about it
> and encourage them to convert their ebuilds to use new EAPI.
No, we shouldn't. People should use new EAPIs as necessary, not as soon
as possible.
> If we
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 04:58:28PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
> > Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other to be quiet in a
> >> discussion which is supposed to be open to everyone who car
Zhang Le wrote:
> Zhang Le wrote:
>> I have just created a page of EAPI on wikipedia, let's improve it together.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAPI
>
> And later convert it to guidexml and put it on gentoo.org, of course.
Wikipedia uses GFDL while we use CC-BY-SA, so no, you can't do that
befor
Zhang Le wrote:
> I have just created a page of EAPI on wikipedia, let's improve it together.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAPI
And later convert it to guidexml and put it on gentoo.org, of course.
--
Zhang Le, Robert
GPG key ID: 1E4E2973
Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1E
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:27:31 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But I am not sick of EAPI's. You see? I am sick of so *many* EAPI's.
>
> What? All two of them that you need to know about, where the second
> one is the first one with three new features?
Sorry,
Simon Cooper wrote:
> nearly all binary files do versioning/format information inside the
> files
Think of different EAPIs as different set of rules for the ebuild
contents. If you accept this, you can easily define "new EAPI" as a "new
format for ebuilds". It's nice that current EAPI "1" is backw
As one of those 'users' (an AT actually), I would find having the eapi
in the filename quite annoying - especially having several ebuilds in
the tree that differ _only_ in their eapi number (and doing different
things). It just Seems Wrong - nearly all binary files do
versioning/format information
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Thursday 20 December 2007 20:01:55 Zhang Le wrote:
>> IMO, we can not have more than two EAPI's simultaneously.
>
> That defeats the whole purpose of having EAPIs. Which is to keep a sane
> upgrade path...
Upgrading happens between two versions.
When a new version
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:01:23 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> Still I think we should just postpone this discussion and get a
>>> 2008.0 out.
>> And postpone until some doc is out.
>
> There is absolutely no need for such a doc. You do
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:01:23 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luca Barbato wrote:
> > Still I think we should just postpone this discussion and get a
> > 2008.0 out.
>
> And postpone until some doc is out.
There is absolutely no need for such a doc. You don't need to
understand every l
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:47:53 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, if we decide to use .ebuild-1, will we provide a ebuild file for
> each EAPI for a specific version of software?
The GLEP covers this. There's no sensible way of doing so.
> I guess probably not, coz that is a huge wast
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Still I think we should just postpone this discussion and get a 2008.0 out.
And postpone until some doc is out.
--
Zhang Le, Robert
GPG key ID: 1E4E2973
Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1E4E 2973
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other to be quiet in a
>> discussion which is supposed to be open to everyone who cares about
>> it.
>
> It's open to anyone who cares about it and is k
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Friday 21 December 2007 05:25:00 Zhang Le wrote:
>> The question is really simple.
>> Whether we should have two different place to define EAPI?
>
> We need two places because it wasn't implemented properly in the first place
> and we want to retain backwards compat
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other to be quiet in a
> discussion which is supposed to be open to everyone who cares about
> it.
It's open to anyone who cares about it and is knowledgeable enough to
provide inf
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
>> So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
>
> Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
> ridiculous.
IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other t
Thomas Pani wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:59:14 +0800
>> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> And file extension like welcome.html.fr is quite self-explanatory.
>>> But an total outsider has no chance to deduce what the 1 in ebuild-1
>>> means on his own.
>> A total o
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:24:06 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not if we move the rsync path properly so
>
> - older pm sync to a minimal try apt to upgrading portage and nothing
> else
>
> - newer sync to the full tree now supporting the newer an better and
> honey and milk eapi.
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:37:27 -0700
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming that the file extension must change to prevent current PMs
> from trying to parse new format ebuilds (and not require waiting a
> year or more), I'd be a lot happier seeing it change *once* to a new
> fixed extens
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:19:45 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
> >> So please make those people understand, so they can comment
> >> usefully.
> >
> > Are we in the elementary school or something? T
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:34:17 +0100
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
> > So please make those people understand, so they can comment
> > usefully.
>
> Are we in the elementary school or something?
Yes, for all intents and pur
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Friday 21 December 2007 03:41:04 Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
>> We have to wait till we got a new release and I hope it isn't 12months.
>
> And then we have to wait till noone use a version of portage that sources the
> ebu
Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 17:22 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
>> something like
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
>
> OT: It actually works adding this first line and do chmod +x foo.ebuild:
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
>> So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
>
> Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
> ridiculous.
>
ietf.org Are they ridiculous?
lu
--
Luca Bar
Assuming that the file extension must change to prevent current PMs from
trying to parse new format ebuilds (and not require waiting a year or
more), I'd be a lot happier seeing it change *once* to a new fixed
extension, with the requirement that the new ebuilds are required to
contain within them
On Thursday 20 December 2007 20:01:55 Zhang Le wrote:
> IMO, we can not have more than two EAPI's simultaneously.
That defeats the whole purpose of having EAPIs. Which is to keep a sane
upgrade path...
--
Bo Andresen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Friday 21 December 2007 05:46:35 Josh Saddler wrote:
> Who cares? Gentoo uses the ebuild/bash-with-shebang format. If you're
> trying to shove in something outside of that, that would be a package
> manager-specific format. Like XML-stuff (that can't include the shebang
> or EAPI="foo" at the to
On Friday 21 December 2007 03:41:04 Luca Barbato wrote:
> > * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
>
> We have to wait till we got a new release and I hope it isn't 12months.
And then we have to wait till noone use a version of portage that sources the
ebuild to get the EAPI. Unless we ch
On Thursday 20 December 2007 22:33:25 Joe Peterson wrote:
> Technical reasons to avoid the filename are:
>
> 2) Having the same info in more than one place is bad (requiring extra
> repoman checks and the potential for ambiguity).
As opposed to adding checks to make sure that obtaining the EAPI fr
On Thursday 20 December 2007 17:14:52 Thomas Pani wrote:
> > Are we Debian now? A new feature gets implemented (obviously because we
> > *need* it) and we can make use of it in a *year*?
>
> No, we're not Debian, thank god. I thought the "wait 1+ year" policy
> changed? Again citing Ciaran: "That w
On Friday 21 December 2007 05:25:00 Zhang Le wrote:
> The question is really simple.
> Whether we should have two different place to define EAPI?
We need two places because it wasn't implemented properly in the first place
and we want to retain backwards compatibility for people who use old versi
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 17:22 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
> something like
>
> #!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
OT: It actually works adding this first line and do chmod +x foo.ebuild:
#! /usr/bin/env ebuild
Then you can d
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:43:43 -0500
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
> > thing works.
>
> I think this is a bit of an unrealistic expectation. This change
> impacts EVERYBODY - devs, users,
On Friday 21 December 2007 08:43:43 Richard Freeman wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
> > thing works.
> CON:
> Yet another value to be parsed out of an increasingly-complex filename.
> Doesn't look pretty :)
Taste is a matter
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
> thing works.
>
I think this is a bit of an unrealistic expectation. This change
impacts EVERYBODY - devs, users, etc. To expect people not to comment
on it simply because they're not qualified to wri
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:29:25 +0100
Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> > Developers have to know about EAPIs. It's part of knowing how to
> > write ebuilds. There's no way around that -- if you're writing
> > ebuilds, you have to know what you are and aren't allowe
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> Developers have to know about EAPIs. It's part of knowing how to write
> ebuilds. There's no way around that -- if you're writing ebuilds, you
> have to know what you are and aren't allowed to do in those ebuilds.
Then please try to keep things simple :)
The majority o
On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
> So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
ridiculous.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:18:53 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well putting the eapi per tree/repo and provide a way to fetch
> directly the tree a package manager can understand sounds pretty much
> a simpler alternative.
And it defeats the whole point of having EAPI at all.
> Add
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:24:26 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Since seems that enough people are against this glep and many are
>> undecided I started polling around for alternatives...
>
> But there has yet to be a correct technical objection, nor a corr
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:58:15 +0100
Thomas Pani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:59:14 +0800
> > Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And file extension like welcome.html.fr is quite self-explanatory.
> >> But an total outsider has no chance to deduc
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:59:14 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And file extension like welcome.html.fr is quite self-explanatory.
>> But an total outsider has no chance to deduce what the 1 in ebuild-1
>> means on his own.
>
> A total outsider doesn't need to
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:24:26 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since seems that enough people are against this glep and many are
> undecided I started polling around for alternatives...
But there has yet to be a correct technical objection, nor a correct
alternative proposed, nor a d
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Near as I can tell, it's only the Paludis folks that are interested
>> in pushing this GLEP through.
>
> Have you tried asking the Portage developer?
>
yes, and I'm waiting for others' opinions too ^^;
Since seems that enough people are against this glep and many are
u
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:46:35 -0800
Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:17:12 +0100
> > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Putting a tag in the file name or at the to of the file as comment
> >> (maybe using a #! line) is the same ...
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:17:12 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Putting a tag in the file name or at the to of the file as comment
>> (maybe using a #! line) is the same ...
> * It's a format restriction. Some formats have to start with something
> that's n
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:27:31 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I am not sick of EAPI's. You see? I am sick of so *many* EAPI's.
What? All two of them that you need to know about, where the second
one is the first one with three new features?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Descr
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:03:25 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We can't take the risk of forking/splitting ourselves in exchange of
>> only a little features.
>
> EAPI introduces no risk of that. Quite the opposite -- it reduces it by
> making it less likely t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:56:35 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> By "all people", I mean all those who have participated in this
>> discussion. They shown their concern.
>> We should listen to what they said.
>
> Even when what they said was nonsense
No nonsen
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:15:10 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we should first decide on how EAPI works.
That was decided a long time ago.
> Just because we need a new feature, then we produce a new EAPI?
> I think that is not feasible, and will confuse developers.
Uh... Yes. I
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:23:08 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I really don't see the necessity to have so many EAPI's
>
> A new EAPI is needed for new features, so new EAPIs will be needed in
> the future. Equally, migrating the whole tree at once to newer
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:03:25 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We can't take the risk of forking/splitting ourselves in exchange of
> only a little features.
EAPI introduces no risk of that. Quite the opposite -- it reduces it by
making it less likely that people will get sick of the ina
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:56:35 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By "all people", I mean all those who have participated in this
> discussion. They shown their concern.
> We should listen to what they said.
Even when what they said was nonsense and the equivalent of running
around saying t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:34:07 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
>> Why rush on this thing?
>> If the EAPI's feature is not freezing, I think we should do nothing
>> but wait.
>
> There's no reason to make Gentoo g
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:38:43 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am afraid if we want all people accept this GLEP wholeheartedly,
>> someone ought to be stand out and take this responsibility.
>
> No no, we want all the people who are qualified to discuss it t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:26:06 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> And no, it's not worth writing them. If people have time to spend
>>> documenting ebuildy things, there are a lot more useful places to
>>> start.
>> It worths. It will influence our future.
>
> A
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:38:43 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am afraid if we want all people accept this GLEP wholeheartedly,
> someone ought to be stand out and take this responsibility.
No no, we want all the people who are qualified to discuss it to accept
it, and the rest to acce
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:34:07 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
>
> Why rush on this thing?
> If the EAPI's feature is not freezing, I think we should do nothing
> but wait.
There's no reason to make Gentoo go even longer without features.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:09:44 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I see it differently.
>> Everyone participated in this discussion has shown their concerns
>> about their distro.
>> If someone don't understand, we should help them to understand, not
>> just exclu
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:26:06 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are none. If anyone really wants to know, they can read the
> > code for their package manager of choice (or better, all of them).
>
> Then I suggest stop this discussion and make a documentation first.
> Seriously.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:17:12 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Putting a tag in the file name or at the to of the file as comment
>> (maybe using a #! line) is the same ...
>
> Three problems:
>
> * We have to wait a year before we can use it.
Why rush o
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:23:08 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Quite the opposite. EAPI's are designed to live happily together in
> > the same repository. A current example: most (or lots...) ebuilds in
> > the tree don't need EAPI="1" and it's pointless to migrate all of
> > them. We
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:46:00 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> People who know what they're talking about are more than welcome to
>>> contradict me. People who don't understand what's being discussed
>>> (which is most people in
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
