Fernando J. Pereda wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 06:01:04PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote: >> All could be get before sourcing. >> I know you'd say people will use all syntaxes to define. But how many are >> there? EAPI=1, EAPI="1" these are the two ways currently used in tree. >> A simple qgrep can show that. >> Two steps can guarantee you get the value >> 1. strip " >> 2. get the value > > And then you are stuck FOREVER into defining EAPI as a variable. >
And with the proposed GLEP you are stuck FOREVER into defining EAPI as part of the filename. What's the difference? > You clearly haven't read anything on this thread. I suggest you go and > do so before making a fool of yourself again. Please. I doubt that they have failed to see that this reply has been made before. Very little has been posted in the last day on this thread that hasn't already been posted the day before. The issue isn't that people are too dumb to realize the limitations of putting "EAPI=foo" in their ebuilds - the issue is that many don't believe that this is much of a limitation. However, nobody wants to stop replying because they're probably concerned that their ignoring this thread will be accepted as evidence of acceptance of the proposal. > > Please guys, keep in mind that the fact that some of you understand what > a filename is and are able to provide simple commands that extract a > particular line from a file does not entitle you with the knowdledge > required to contribute something useful to this discussion. This really isn't helpful. It is essentially an ad-hominum argument. The fundamental issue is that there is a disagreement over whether leaving things as they are currently is a major problem. If others don't have the knowledge necessary to contribute something useful then take the time to educate them - don't tell them to just be quiet. The number of replies in this thread obviously indicates that we're not talking about 1-2 people who aren't quite sure what is going on and 200 people that clearly agree with the merits of this proposal. If so many people can't see the value in this GLEP then perhaps it isn't adequately explained? As I see it, the only real advantage of changing filenames vs a variable with formatting requirements (thus allowing it to be scanned without sourcing the ebuild) seems to be that it will prevent current package managers from breaking when they source an ebuild due to new global functions. The only other objection I've seen raised is that the variable approach limits your future options regarding content - but I don't see that as being really any worse than limiting the filename. Either way its a few bytes in a particular spot on the disk - why is one better than the other? I'm actually warming up to this proposal a little, but those in favor of it would do well to address concerns and discuss them with those who raise them (possibly by irc/off-list-email as needed) and not just tell them to be quiet about it. The goal isn't to bash everybody in to submission within 2 days so that the GLEP can get approved - the goal is to gather input so that the GLEP can be as good as possible when it is approved. You don't need to completely agree with your critics to at least consider their objections.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
