On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 05:49:07AM +0000, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Ulrich Mueller:
> >>
> >> I wonder if it wouldn't be saner to leave our revision syntax
> >> untouched.
>
> As already mentioned, -r1.1 is only one of several possible ways
> how to achieve the same aim; I am not speaking in favour for a
> particular method.
Sure. As dolsen prefix is using it, even if this weren't better done
as metadata.
> The -r1.1 method has the advantage of being simple and transparent
> to the user and developer. Other approaches have other advantages:
>
> >> Instead, one could introduce a variable INSTALL_VERSION that would
>
> (It would have to be a variable stored in the metadata/ cache
> and thus also would only work with a new API, but these are only
> technical details.)
Agreed again, there's far too much conflabation of EAPI vs impl round here.
Not helped by the obfuscatory troll you've had the mispleasure to encounter.
Think of it as an initiation.. ;-)
> >> default to ${PVR} but could be set to the version of a previous ebuild
> >> instead. The PM could compare it against INSTALL_VERSION in the VDB
> >> and skip build and installation if versions match.
>
> It should be a list and have empty default (*never* including the
> version itself), but these are also technical details.
> This solution would have the advantage that you could specify
> *full* versions and thus have even more fine-grained control when
> recompilations are necessary. One could also allow specify version
> ranges, slots, overlays, etc., perhaps even make the behaviour
> dependent of USE-flags, as you already mentioned, all
> similarl to current DEPEND syntax.
>
> The disadvantage is that it is slightly more work than -r1.1,
> less transparent, and easily overlooked to remove for a version bump,
> causing issues like these:
>
> > It will probably also cause confusion for comaintainers and
> > collaborators, especially when INSTALL_VERSION points to a version that
> > has already been removed.
So use another name that can't be confused. Perhaps REPLACES_VERSION, or
w/e the primadonna will allow, since we're still feeding him goats..
Perhaps doubt he'll want to pluralise it, in that tedious nu-skool way
of his. More likely he'll just use anything we discuss as an excuse
for more FUD.
Regards,
steveL
PS: Now you know just why..
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
