Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for February 26

2009-02-24 Thread Santiago M. Mola
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: At the very least I'm after having the non-pms repos marked in some fashion so that alt implementations don't have to assume the portage standard (rather then the *agreed to* pms standard) to avoid exploding, but that's

[gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ryan Hill
Alec Warner antarus at gentoo.org writes: Somewhat ironically, had everyone been less stubborn last year when discussing this topic we could have embedded the EAPI in line X of the ebuild in 2008 and be using it now; instead of still discussing it. I don't expect new novel ideas out of this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Jim Ramsay
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:25:27 -0500 Jim Ramsay l...@gentoo.org wrote: ...and it means we can't change name or version rules. ...and it means over doubling the best possible time to work out a dependency tree in the common case

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:08:45 -0500 Jim Ramsay l...@gentoo.org wrote: But when you say worth the complexity, I'm not exactly sure what your standards of worthiness are. I don't think the human cognition of a 2-level versioning scheme is that tricky, so I assume you must mean complexity in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:24:16 + Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:16:54 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: You're doubling the number of files that have to be read for an operation that's almost purely i/o bound. On top of that,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:28:43 +0100 Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:24:16 + Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:16:54 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: You're doubling the number of files that have to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Jim Ramsay
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: People are struggling with the one level scheme we have now. We're already having to produce fancy tables and summaries for new EAPIs because people can't keep track of when features came along. Two levels just means no-one will remember

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:07:29 -0500 Jim Ramsay l...@gentoo.org wrote: Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: People are struggling with the one level scheme we have now. We're already having to produce fancy tables and summaries for new EAPIs because people can't keep track of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: ..and it means we can't change name or version rules. Why? Just parse the EAPI out of the file before you interpret the version and name from the filename. Indeed - you could have a future EAPI remove the name and version from the filename entirely. If a package

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:17:01 -0500 Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Why? Just parse the EAPI out of the file before you interpret the version and name from the filename. Indeed - you could have a future EAPI remove the name and version from the filename entirely. If a package

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Jim Ramsay
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:07:29 -0500 Jim Ramsay l...@gentoo.org wrote: I think things are very nicely documented in PMS and the devmanual, which are where all EAPI changes should be documented in the future, regardless if you specify

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Robert Bridge
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:36:29 -0700 Joe Peterson lava...@gentoo.org wrote: 2) it makes sense to have these in the filename, but not internal meta-data For those of us who understand the process, it makes sense to have EAPI in the filename too. Which seems to be an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:37:36 -0500 Jim Ramsay l...@gentoo.org wrote: They only ended up nicely documented after people moaned a lot that they were having a hard time keeping track of EAPIs... You can't possibly be suggesting that everyone will be able to keep an ever-increasing number of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Jim Ramsay
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:37:36 -0500 Jim Ramsay l...@gentoo.org wrote: They only ended up nicely documented after people moaned a lot that they were having a hard time keeping track of EAPIs... You can't possibly be suggesting that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Roy Bamford
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2009.02.24 16:48, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [snip] PN and PV are metadata, same as EAPI. [snip] -- Ciaran McCreesh So we made a mistake with PN and PV and may compound it with EAPI. How long before we *must* have other pieces of information

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:17:57 + Roy Bamford neddyseag...@gentoo.org wrote: PN and PV are metadata, same as EAPI. So we made a mistake with PN and PV and may compound it with EAPI. How long before we *must* have other pieces of information in the filename? Uh, never. When will the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Robert Bridge
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:17:57 + Except that once we have EAPI in the file extension, we can change anything we want in arbitrary ways without having to worry about backwards compatibility, so we won't need silly hacks. Like the file name structure?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:17:01 -0500 Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Why? Just parse the EAPI out of the file before you interpret the version and name from the filename. Indeed - you could have a future EAPI remove the name and version from the filename

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:46:17 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: It means opening a file that would otherwise not be opened at all. And if the EAPI is in the file, you have to fish inside that file to pull it out before you can work out whether the cache entry that might contain

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Roy Bamford
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2009.02.24 21:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:17:57 + Roy Bamford neddyseag...@gentoo.org wrote: PN and PV are metadata, same as EAPI. So we made a mistake with PN and PV and may compound it with EAPI. How long

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:11:47 + Roy Bamford neddyseag...@gentoo.org wrote: Except that once we have EAPI in the file extension, we can change anything we want in arbitrary ways without having to worry about backwards compatibility, so we won't need silly hacks. Your response amounts to

[gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-24 Thread Petteri Räty
Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it easy to read

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Not true. You don't know whether the cache is valid until you know what the EAPI is. If you are on the user scenario the cache is valid. If the eapi changes the cache meaning you can always put the new cache in another place older portage won't look into. You: - have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-24 Thread Ferris McCormick
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:21:23 +0200 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is only

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Luca Barbato
Ryan Hill wrote: some other random ideas i've seen tossed around: - #!/bin/env eapi-parser - split EAPI into EAPI and some separate counter which would only be incremented on uncompatible changes to the ebuild format - change .ebuild to .eb - waffles (sorry, lunchtime) Yummy! -- Luca

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:48:27 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Not true. You don't know whether the cache is valid until you know what the EAPI is. If you are on the user scenario the cache is valid. Uh. Wrong. Can't use the cache until you know what

[gentoo-dev] Re: Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-24 Thread Ryan Hill
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:21:23 +0200 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is only

Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-24 Thread Richard Freeman
Petteri Räty wrote: 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild - Allows changing global scope - EAPI can't be changed in an existing ebuild so the PM can trust the value in the cache I don't see how this follows. The PM can compare the mtime on the file with the time the cache was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55

2009-02-24 Thread Petteri Räty
Also one point worth nothing here is that migrating from EAPI in the file name to having it in a special place in the file can be scripted so the change should be quite easy to do at a later point in time for the main repository if wanted. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP

Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-24 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Petteri Räty wrote: Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:16:54 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: You're doubling the number of files that have to be read for an operation that's almost purely i/o bound. On top of that, you're introducing a whole bunch of disk seeks in what's otherwise a nice

Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-24 Thread Dawid Węgliński
On Tuesday 24 of February 2009 23:21:23 Petteri Räty wrote: Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is only allowed to post a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-24 Thread Alistair Bush
Petteri Räty wrote: Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-24 Thread Alec Warner
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Everyone is only

Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-24 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:21:23 +0200 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions [...] A multitude of leaves on every branch of the tree. That could be a multiple of the current tree size - maybe talk to infra about this. It's also a multitude

Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-24 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Petteri Räty wrote: Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in order to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. I've already commented on this in December 2007 [1], and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for February 26

2009-02-24 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 23:26 Sun 22 Feb , Donnie Berkholz wrote: This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd 4th Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Alistair Bush
Luca Barbato wrote: Luca Barbato wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Because your proposal addresses none of the underlying problems which GLEP 55 was created to solve. let's get some numbers to have an idea of the dimension of the problem. I just don't think those numbers tell us anything and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread George Shapovalov
(Ok this thread grew too long, so I gotta chime in :)) We could start using extended attributes or mandate reiser4 for portage dir or some other special in between (the inside of file and its name) feature.. Sorry for the noise and insane implementation suggestion :).. George PS Actually,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Luca Barbato
Alistair Bush wrote: I just don't think those numbers tell us anything and that should be obvious from anyone who has read GLEP 55[1], we ain't really attempting to solve a problem that exists within the tree currently (well the bash issue does, in a way ). We are trying to solve issues that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Alistair Bush
George Shapovalov wrote: (Ok this thread grew too long, so I gotta chime in :)) We could start using extended attributes or mandate reiser4 for portage dir or some other special in between (the inside of file and its name) feature.. No. 1) I wouldn't use reiser4 so that would be the end

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Alistair Bush
Luca Barbato wrote: Alistair Bush wrote: I just don't think those numbers tell us anything and that should be obvious from anyone who has read GLEP 55[1], we ain't really attempting to solve a problem that exists within the tree currently (well the bash issue does, in a way ). We are

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] global useflags

2009-02-24 Thread Timothy Redaelli
Il martedì 24 febbraio 2009 00:00:26 Markus Meier ha scritto: cut proposals: custom-cflags: Build with user-specified CFLAGS (unsupported) as custom-cxxflags has been added (w/o discussion here) cut I asked it some times ago [1]. I hope we can have custom-c{xx,}flags in global useflags soon

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Luca Barbato
Alistair Bush wrote: Luca Barbato wrote: Alistair Bush wrote: I just don't think those numbers tell us anything and that should be obvious from anyone who has read GLEP 55[1], we ain't really attempting to solve a problem that exists within the tree currently (well the bash issue does, in a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: bzr.eclass

2009-02-24 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 08:45:28PM +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote: if [[ ${EBZR_REPO_URI} == */* ]]; then repository=${EBZR_REPO_URI}/${EBZR_BRANCH} elif [[ -n ${EBZR_BRANCH} ]] ; then ... else ... fi If I see this correctly, this appends EBZR_BRANCH if there is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: News item: Generation 1 deprecation

2009-02-24 Thread Petteri Räty
Jan Kundrát wrote: See the patch. applied signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Serkan Kaba
2009/2/24 Ferris McCormick fmc...@gentoo.org On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 22:19 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:15:25 -0600 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: Can we ban eclasses from setting EAPI? Is there any case where it would be sane? It's already banned from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:08:23 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: Is there any technical merit in putting eapi in the file extension while we could restrict the format the same way in file and have about the same, negligible, performance hit? (I used warm cache since you need the file

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:49:02 -0500 Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: and it doesn't let you change name or version rules. Neither does putting the EAPI in the filename as far as I can tell. Name or versioning rules are things like allowing new suffixes or altering the restrictions upon

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Richard Freeman
Alistair Bush wrote: 4) Parsing the ebuild. But what are we parsing?, lets not limit ourselves to bash, we might want to change languages completely. If it is bash, what version, what if EAPI is set multiple times, what if its set in an eclass. How do you do this if you're getting EAPI

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: bash-4.0 regression heads up (escaped semicolons in subshells)

2009-02-24 Thread Daniel Gryniewicz
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 19:44 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: snip i'll tweak the eclasses to use quoting for now no one suggested doing any of this crap you're talking about. if you want to get all retarded, dont install the masked ebuild. i gave a heads up to people who

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: bash-4.0 regression heads up (escaped semicolons in subshells)

2009-02-24 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 24 February 2009 10:52:55 Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 19:44 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: i'll tweak the eclasses to use quoting for now no one suggested doing any of this crap you're talking about. if you want to get all retarded, dont install the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:46:30 -0500 Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: I will certainly concede that putting it inside the ebuild potentially breaks compatibility with existing package managers. That is certainly a downside to this approach. However, none of the other objections that have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:08:23 +0100 Uh, your benchmarks are nonsense. Provide your nonsensical ones. That is not how metadata checks work. Explain how they work, regen works that way... By parsing the ebuilds you're talking doubling the number of file reads required

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:04:28 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:08:23 +0100 Uh, your benchmarks are nonsense. Provide your nonsensical ones. You're doubling the number of files that have to be read for an operation that's almost

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Joe Peterson
Richard Freeman wrote: I still don't see why we need to be encoding metadata in filenames. Correct. GLEP 55 tries to solve a technical implementation issue by exposing meta data in the filename. Extremely bad form/design, IMHO. PERL doesn't care what a file extension is, python doesn't care,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Alec Warner
Somewhat ironically, had everyone been less stubborn last year when discussing this topic we could have embedded the EAPI in line X of the ebuild in 2008 and be using it now; instead of still discussing it. I don't expect new novel ideas out of this thread. I expect the council to defer it again

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:15:59 -0700 Joe Peterson lava...@gentoo.org wrote: Richard Freeman wrote: I still don't see why we need to be encoding metadata in filenames. Correct. GLEP 55 tries to solve a technical implementation issue by exposing meta data in the filename. Extremely bad

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:21:25 -0800 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: Somewhat ironically, had everyone been less stubborn last year when discussing this topic we could have embedded the EAPI in line X of the ebuild in 2008 and be using it now; instead of still discussing it. ...and we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Joe Peterson
Richard Freeman wrote: The dynamic linker doesn't need to consult the filename to figure out how to parse a shared object. It only consults the filename to figure out which shared object is needed. That is actually analogous to putting the package name/version in the ebuild filename.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:24:48 -0700 Joe Peterson lava...@gentoo.org wrote: Right. Plus, if the linker *did* consult the filename, imagine what would happen if someone renamed the file (even by accident) and changed the version? The parser should not be able to be so easily fooled - could

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Alec Warner
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:21:25 -0800 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: Somewhat ironically, had everyone been less stubborn last year when discussing this topic we could have embedded the EAPI in line X of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Joe Peterson
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:24:48 -0700 Joe Peterson lava...@gentoo.org wrote: Right. Plus, if the linker *did* consult the filename, imagine what would happen if someone renamed the file (even by accident) and changed the version? The parser should not be able to be so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: ...and it means we can't change name or version rules. And has such a case come to light recently where it was *essential* to do so? Why solve problems that don't exist? ...and it means over doubling the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:33:19 -0800 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: Hey I never said its a perfect solution; but I'm a fan of the 'it covers 80%'. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too; sometimes requirements get dropped. We can cover 100% with a solution with less of an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Alec Warner
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:33:19 -0800 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: Hey I never said its a perfect solution; but I'm a fan of the 'it covers 80%'. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too;

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:36:29 -0700 Joe Peterson lava...@gentoo.org wrote: You could use the same absurd argument to say that PN and PV shouldn't be in the filename... No...! They are needed because: 1) versions of the *content*, not the *format* are needed for uniqueness So why's PN

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:59:39 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: ...and it means we can't change name or version rules. And has such a case come to light recently where it was *essential* to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:45:44 -0700 Joe Peterson lava...@gentoo.org wrote: Then why don't you come up with a viable solution? I already have - look back at my posts; very similar to Rich0's idea. No, I said viable. And I tire of the argument that if one doesn't have a perfect solution now,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:42:44 -0800 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:33:19 -0800 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: Hey I never said its a perfect solution; but I'm a fan of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:25:27 -0500 Jim Ramsay l...@gentoo.org wrote: ...and it means we can't change name or version rules. ...and it means over doubling the best possible time to work out a dependency tree in the common case where the metadata cache is valid. ...and it means we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:16:54 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: You're doubling the number of files that have to be read for an operation that's almost purely i/o bound. On top of that, you're introducing a whole bunch of disk seeks in what's otherwise a nice linear operation.