On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org 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 bash
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Richard Yao r...@cs.stonybrook.edu 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
* 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 with bash assignment
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:14:13 -0500
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com 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
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:12:25 -0800
Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org
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
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
I'd like to add http://code.google.com/p/hardened-shadow/ 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
On 03/08/2012 12:13 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org 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
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,
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?
On Mar 8, 2012 3:29 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org 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
* Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org [120307 21:25]:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:36:05 -0500
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org 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
On 03/08/2012 08:11 AM, David Leverton wrote:
On Mar 8, 2012 3:29 PM, Zac Medicozmed...@gentoo.org 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
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:21:53 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org 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
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
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:30:57 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org 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
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org 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
On 03/08/2012 08:29 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:21:53 -0800
Zac Medicozmed...@gentoo.org 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
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 the simple task
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
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org 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
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:59:33 -0500
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org 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
On 03/08/2012 08:35 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:30:57 -0800
Zac Medicozmed...@gentoo.org 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
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:07:18 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org 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
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:56:21 -0500
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com 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
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:14:58 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com 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
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 18:30:47 +0100
Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:14:58 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Having a different, special rule for something that looks exactly
like lots of other things that do not have that different, special
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)
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 21:41:02 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org 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
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:48:51 -0500
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com 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
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 18:52:13 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org 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
On 03/08/2012 09:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 21:41:02 +0100
Ulrich Muelleru...@gentoo.org 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'
On 03/08/2012 12:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:48:51 -0500
Michael Orlitzkymich...@orlitzky.com 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
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:37:09 -0500
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com 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.
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 of the ebuild (N=10
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:59:33 -0500
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org 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
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:17:41 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org 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
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:04:55 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org 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
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:31:16 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:17:41 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
In one of them, removal of the old assignment statement had simply
been forgotten [1]. For the other two, the EAPI had been
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:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:37:21 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org 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
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.
Ulrich
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
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com 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
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
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:35:14 -0500
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com 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
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
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
On 03/08/2012 01:48 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This avoids having to pipe through multiple greps, as well as running
diff multiple times on the same set of files.
It all looks good to me, except you need to use list(filter(...)) for
python3 compatibility, since filter() returns an iterator in
49 matches
Mail list logo
