Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/08/2012 09:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > The function can do any crazy thing you want. We don't need a function. We need to know the EAPI before we source the ebuild, and a function doesn't give us that. -- Thanks, Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/09/2012 12:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote: This is of course isomorphic to requiring a specific EAPI=4 format, but does allow you to do stupid things like x=`seq 4 4`; eapi $x; if you want. What advantage does it give us? We still can't change ebuild syntax in global scope because bash will b

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:35:14 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 03/08/2012 01:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > >> If they're code, they're code, and we need to execute them somehow. > > > > The notion of "execute them somehow" that's used doesn't fit in with > > the #! interpreter model. You a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 09:41:02PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote > Written in a more formal way, appropriate for a specification: > - Ebuilds must contain at most one EAPI assignment statement. > - It must occur within the first N lines of the ebuild (N=10 and N=30 > have been suggested). > - The

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 03/08/2012 01:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> >> >>> If they're code, they're code, and we need to execute them somehow. >> >> >> The notion of "execute them somehow" that's used doesn't fit in with >> the #! interpreter model. You aren

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/08/2012 01:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: If they're code, they're code, and we need to execute them somehow. The notion of "execute them somehow" that's used doesn't fit in with the #! interpreter model. You aren't executing ebuilds via an interpreter. You're performing an action that i

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect repository moved to git

> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Michał Górny wrote: > Did you just do the ultimately ugly thing of having two repos in one, > as two completely diverged branches? I'm certainly not a git expert. But the git project itself does such things in their repo, so I believe it cannot be completely wrong. Ulri

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect repository moved to git

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:37:21 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > This is a heads up that the eselect repository has moved to > git.overlays.gentoo.org. > > If you maintain your modules there, you'll find all external modules > in the "extern" branch, whereas eselect proper is in master. Did you just d

[gentoo-dev] eselect repository moved to git

This is a heads up that the eselect repository has moved to git.overlays.gentoo.org. If you maintain your modules there, you'll find all external modules in the "extern" branch, whereas eselect proper is in master. Note that the version assignment used in most modules will no longer work with git

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:31:16 + Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:17:41 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > In one of them, removal of the old assignment statement had simply > > been forgotten [1]. For the other two, the EAPI had been assigned by > > an eclass [2], which we conside

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:04:55 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Err... so what happens if 'new parsing' detects EAPI 4 and 'old > > parsing' detects EAPI 5? > > This cannot happen for a legal ebuild: > - If the ebuild is EAPI 4, then sourcing it ("old parsing") must > detect EAPI 4. the problem he

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:17:41 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > In one of them, removal of the old assignment statement had simply > been forgotten [1]. For the other two, the EAPI had been assigned by > an eclass [2], which we consider illegal anyway. ...and yet people do it. That and the violations o

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:59:33 -0500 > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: >> In light of the fact that all 29758 ebuilds in portage already >> satisfy the proposed whitespace, quoting, and indenting constrains >> on EAPI assignment, the probability of pro

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Michał Górny wrote: >> *** Proposal 1: "Parse the EAPI assignment statement" *** >> >> [...] >> >> Written in a more formal way, appropriate for a specification: >> - Ebuilds must contain at most one EAPI assignment statement. >> - It must occur within the first N lines

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:37:09 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > It probably should. Although in the early days the model for ebuilds > > was that they were scripts that were "executed", nowadays there's so > > much support required that it's better to think of ebuilds as being > > data. If you did

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/08/2012 12:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:48:51 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 03/08/2012 12:28 PM, Michał Górny wrote: And something will need to provide that /usr/bin/eapi4 thing. And that introduces new problems: I'm just parroting someone else's suggestion;

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/08/2012 09:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 21:41:02 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: 1b) It is only applied for EAPI 5 and later (which means that the result of the EAPI parsing would be discarded for earlier EAPIs). Err... so what happens if 'new parsing' detects EAPI 4 a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 18:52:13 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > > Again, the proposal comes in two variants: > > 2a) It is combined with a one time change of the file extension, > > like .ebuild -> .eb. > > And we're going to retroactively migrate the tree or have random file > suffixes intermixed? Not t

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:48:51 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 03/08/2012 12:28 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > And something will need to provide that /usr/bin/eapi4 thing. And > > that introduces new problems: > > I'm just parroting someone else's suggestion; I don't really know > enough about the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 21:41:02 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > *** Proposal 1: "Parse the EAPI assignment statement" *** > > [...] > > Written in a more formal way, appropriate for a specification: > - Ebuilds must contain at most one EAPI assignment statement. > - It must occur within the first N li

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/08/2012 12:28 PM, Michał Górny wrote: And something will need to provide that /usr/bin/eapi4 thing. And that introduces new problems: I'm just parroting someone else's suggestion; I don't really know enough about the details to answer these properly. Not that that will stop me. 1) h

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 18:30:47 +0100 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:14:58 + > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Having a different, special rule for something that looks exactly > > like lots of other things that do not have that different, special > > rule is hardly hair splitting. This

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:14:58 + Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Having a different, special rule for something that looks exactly like > lots of other things that do not have that different, special rule is > hardly hair splitting. This rule would have to be documented and have > special code to caref

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:56:21 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 03/08/2012 07:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > >> > >> Someone suggested using a standard shebang the last time this came > >> up, and if I remember correctly it was one of the > >> least-disagreeable solutions proposed. We could of cour

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:07:18 -0800 Zac Medico wrote: > It's a very special metadata variable. Of course, it could also be > implemented in many different ways that do not involve bash variable > assingments. Maybe the differences between the various possible ways > truly make a difference to so

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/08/2012 08:35 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:30:57 -0800 Zac Medico wrote: On 03/08/2012 01:42 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: * Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 08.03.12 um 08:27 Uhr: Such constructs also cannot be used with any of the other proposed solutions. And in fact, nob

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:59:33 -0500 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 16:29 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > And you believe that having exactly one place inside ebuild text > > where there are different whitespace, quoting and indenting rules > > for something that otherwise loo

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> There's also libbash now: > > Looks like complete overkill to me, considering the simple task at > hand. > Plus, wasn't the whole point that we can't guarantee that the bash installed o

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 16:29 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > And you believe that having exactly one place inside ebuild text where > there are different whitespace, quoting and indenting rules for > something that otherwise looks exactly like any other metadata variable > isn't going to cause probl

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 03/07/2012 03:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> >> *** Proposal 1: "Parse the EAPI assignment statement" *** > There's also libbash now: >http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/libbash/index.xml Looks like complete overkill to me, considering th

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/08/2012 08:29 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:21:53 -0800 Zac Medico wrote: Maybe that sort of distinction truly makes a difference to some people, but to me it just seems like hair-splitting [1]. So just to get this straight, you think that the following two restricti

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Again, the proposal comes in two variants: > 2a) It is combined with a one time change of the file extension, like >    .ebuild -> .eb. > 2b) The usual EAPI assignment statement in the ebuild is still >    required, at least for a transition

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:30:57 -0800 Zac Medico wrote: > On 03/08/2012 01:42 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > > * Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 08.03.12 um 08:27 Uhr: > >> Such constructs also cannot be used with any of the other proposed > >> solutions. And in fact, nobody is using such things in practice

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/08/2012 01:42 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: * Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 08.03.12 um 08:27 Uhr: Such constructs also cannot be used with any of the other proposed solutions. And in fact, nobody is using such things in practice. _All_ ebuilds in the Portage tree can be successfully parsed with

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:21:53 -0800 Zac Medico wrote: > Maybe that sort of distinction truly makes a difference to some > people, but to me it just seems like hair-splitting [1]. So just to get this straight, you think that the following two restrictions are effectively equivalent? * The variable

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/08/2012 08:11 AM, David Leverton wrote: On Mar 8, 2012 3:29 PM, "Zac Medico" wrote: Something like DEPEND="foo bar" is also valid bash, and yet we don't allow that either because "foo bar" does not contain valid dependency atoms. There's a bit of a difference between caring about the va

[gentoo-dev] Ebb (eb) was: Re: RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

* Jeroen Roovers [120307 21:25]: > On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:36:05 -0500 > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > > > FYI, any Russian speaker is *guaranteed* to read the name ".eb" as a > > very common obscenity. > > In Dutch it means the low tide, and as a verb, it means "becoming low" > or "decreasing"

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Mar 8, 2012 3:29 PM, "Zac Medico" wrote: > Something like DEPEND="foo bar" is also valid bash, and yet we don't > allow that either because "foo bar" does not contain valid dependency > atoms. There's a bit of a difference between caring about the value of a variable and caring about what synt

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/07/2012 03:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: *** Proposal 1: "Parse the EAPI assignment statement" *** There's also libbash now: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/libbash/index.xml Anyone know how close we are to being able to use it to parse the EAPI?

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/08/2012 07:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote: Someone suggested using a standard shebang the last time this came up, and if I remember correctly it was one of the least-disagreeable solutions proposed. We could of course define our own custom format, but I think something like, #!/usr/bin/eap

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On 03/08/2012 12:13 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Such constructs also cannot be used with any of the other proposed >> solutions. And in fact, nobody is using such things in practice. >> _All_ ebuilds in the Portage tree can be successfully par

[gentoo-dev] RFC: virtual/shadow

I'd like to add to the tree. It is an alternative implementation of shadow utilities (passwd, su, login, etc) based on ideas from Openwall's tcb. Earlier I tried upstreaming the Openwall's shadow patches, and you can see a log of those efforts at

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Submit project ideas NOW for Google Summer of Code 2012

On 03/08/2012 02:28 AM, Richard Yao wrote: I am not a developer yet, but I would like to suggest some idea possibilities: Minix port of Gentoo Illumos port of Gentoo LLVM/Clang System Compiler Support ICC System Compiler Support (probably easier than LLVM/Clang) Port of Gentoo/FreeBSD to amd64 (

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:12:25 -0800 Alec Warner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The way how we currently specify the EAPI in ebuilds has some > > problems. For example, there is no sane way to allow usage of > > features of a new bash version i

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:14:13 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 03/07/2012 03:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > *** Proposal 2: "EAPI in header comment" *** > > > > A different approach would be to specify the EAPI in a specially > > formatted comment in the ebuild's header. No syntax has been

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

* Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 08.03.12 um 08:27 Uhr: > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Alec Warner wrote: > > >> *** Proposal 1: "Parse the EAPI assignment statement" *** > >> [...] > > > I don't like this idea because the sane way should be easy and > > straightforward. Mixing a constant declaration wit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Submit project ideas NOW for Google Summer of Code 2012

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > I am not a developer yet, but I would like to suggest some idea possibilities: > > Minix port of Gentoo > Illumos port of Gentoo > LLVM/Clang System Compiler Support > ICC System Compiler Support (probably easier than LLVM/Clang) > Port of Gent

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD: EAPI specification in ebuilds

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Alec Warner wrote: > >>> *** Proposal 1: "Parse the EAPI assignment statement" *** >>> [...] > >> I don't like this idea because the sane way should be easy and >> straightforward. Mixing a constant declaration with