Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-21 Thread Robert R. Russell
On Saturday 16 May 2009 20:17:14 Nick Fortino wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:39:40 -0700 Nick Fortino nfort...@gmail.com wrote: Given the above, it should be clear that any argument which states some future improvement to the ebuild format will be impossible based

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Alistair Bush
Ben de Groot wrote: Patrick Lauer wrote: For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55. [http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html] The proposed solution to a problem that is never refined, This, in my opinion, is

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Thomas Anderson
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:35:43AM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: Ravi Pinjala wrote: Nick Fortino wrote: Such a transformation is possible, given the restrictions on arg, as well as ebuild format. Isn't this a bit circular? The whole point of wanting to change the extension is to get rid of

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 07:40 -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote: [...] The difference is that putting the EAPI in the filename has backwards compatibility because package managers not knowing about this change won't even look at the those ebuilds. Putting EAPI as the fifth line completely loses this,

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Richard Freeman
Alistair Bush wrote: Is it really necessary to convince the entire community for every GLEP? I thought that the reason we have the council is so they can make decisions. You know specialization of decision making. If the council is going to expect anyone else, besides themselves, to

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Tobias Klausmann
Hi! On Fri, 15 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: eval `grep '^EAPI=' ebuildfile | head -n 1` will set EAPI in the current scope to EAPI in the ebuild, without sourcing it, unless the issue with something like this would be its use of grep and head, but these are both in the system set,

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 15 May 2009 14:43:29 -0500 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:53:37PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: It can't, because it doesn't know the EAPI until it's sourced the thing using

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread David Leverton
On Saturday 16 May 2009 10:27:51 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: How is it possible to do these things encoded in the filename? For the export example, it's just a matter of using a different bash syntax from what the magic regex expects, which is completely irrelevant if it goes in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ben de Groot
David Leverton wrote: But the point isn't that we want to be able to do those things. The point is that if the EAPI is in the filename, it's blatantly obvious that it has to be static, but adding strange and unintuitive restrictions on which shell constructs can be used is, well, strange

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 11:27:10 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: Change the spec, then. If we change the spec, we can't do anything with the change until we're absolutely sure that everyone's updated both their ebuilds and their package manager for it. Actually, I personally

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Tobias Klausmann
Hi! On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 11:27:10 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: Change the spec, then. If we change the spec, we can't do anything with the change until we're absolutely sure that everyone's updated both their ebuilds and

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 17:32:24 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 11:27:10 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: Change the spec, then. If we change the spec, we can't do anything with the change

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Tobias Klausmann
Hi! On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 17:32:24 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 11:27:10 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: Change the spec, then. If

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 17:43:32 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: That doesn't let us do version format changes. Or are we talking about the *ebuild* versions? I see that as different matter. Plus: You could change the version format with the changed extension. I sure do hope

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 17:55:01 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: Yes, those. The current rules include some pointless arbitrary restrictions that are only there for historical reasons and that mean people have to mess with convoluted MY_PV things. Still: a sane spec for

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Tobias Klausmann
Hi! On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: Yes, those. The current rules include some pointless arbitrary restrictions that are only there for historical reasons and that mean people have to mess with convoluted MY_PV things. Still:

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:15:58 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: Yes, those. The current rules include some pointless arbitrary restrictions that are only there for historical reasons

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Tobias Klausmann
Hi! On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: So we're not talking about .ebuild-2 for EAPI=2, .ebuild-3 for EAPI=3 etc? That would just be silly and it was the first idea I got when I saw the proposal. Yes, yes we are. That's just one change, from a static string to a pattern for a

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 16:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 17:43:32 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: That doesn't let us do version format changes. Or are we talking about the *ebuild* versions? I see that as different matter. Plus: You could change

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:31:38 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: So we're not talking about .ebuild-2 for EAPI=2, .ebuild-3 for EAPI=3 etc? That would just be silly and it was the first idea I got when I saw the proposal.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Thomas Anderson
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 10:05:08PM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 16:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 17:43:32 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: That doesn't let us do version format changes. Or are we talking about the

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 22:05:08 +0530 Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote: So from all the debate that's going on, the current major issue seems to be being able to support '-scm' as per GLEP-54. What other restrictions in the version format are you referring to? Have a look at every

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 12:39 -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote: [...] For one, there's the restriction that all *-alpha/*-rc has to be represented _rc/_alpha. I plan on doing more research into perhaps lifting this restriction in a future EAPI, but this would of course require glep 55's solution.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 22:14:30 +0530 Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 12:39 -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote: For one, there's the restriction that all *-alpha/*-rc has to be represented _rc/_alpha. I plan on doing more research into perhaps lifting this

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 17:47 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Ok, what are all the things requiring format-break changes that we'll want in the next ten years? Please provide a complete list. Don't care. Let's fix the problems we have *now* using solutions that we can agree upon, rather than try

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Tobias Klausmann
Hi! On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:31:38 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: So we're not talking about .ebuild-2 for EAPI=2, .ebuild-3 for EAPI=3 etc? That would just be silly and it was

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:54:41 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: Why? What's the big deal with .ebuild-? or .eapi-?.eb instead of .ebuild? One that you illustrate yourself: what aboud .eapi-11.eb or .ebuild-11? Then you include those in your static list not using patterns

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 22:24:04 +0530 Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 17:47 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Ok, what are all the things requiring format-break changes that we'll want in the next ten years? Please provide a complete list. Don't care. Let's fix

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 17:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [...] Don't care. Let's fix the problems we have *now* using solutions that we can agree upon, rather than try to foist solutions that a reasonably large population of developers *don't* like (even after extended debate) to solve

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Tobias Klausmann
Hi! On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: Why? What's the big deal with .ebuild-? or .eapi-?.eb instead of .ebuild? One that you illustrate yourself: what aboud .eapi-11.eb or .ebuild-11? Then you include those in your static

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:13:21 +0200 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote: Then you include those in your static list not using patterns that deals with them. I'm unable to parse this sentence. If you're writing a tool that deals with ebuilds, you should have a list of EAPIs and their

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 22:39:46 +0530 Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 17:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Don't care. Let's fix the problems we have *now* using solutions that we can agree upon, rather than try to foist solutions that a reasonably large

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread William Hubbs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 01:11:34PM +0200, Ben de Groot wrote: David Leverton wrote: But the point isn't that we want to be able to do those things. The point is that if the EAPI is in the filename, it's blatantly obvious that it has to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:10:07 -0500 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: Agreed. The way I have always usedEAPI is, you set it once at the top of the EBUILD and you are done with it. As far as I know, there is no reason to change EAPI once it is set, and eclasses shouldn't be changing it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread William Hubbs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 07:14:00PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:10:07 -0500 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: Agreed. The way I have always usedEAPI is, you set it once at the top of the EBUILD and you are done

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Robert Buchholz
On Saturday 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Have a look at every package using a MY_PV style thing. Group those into upstream's doing something dumb and upstream's being sensible but our arbitrary restrictions on rules means we can't follow what they do. I like the fact that our

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 20:38:30 +0200 Robert Buchholz r...@gentoo.org wrote: I like the fact that our versioning rules are a fixed subset of the sum of all our upstream's versioning rules. It provides a more consistent user experience. As a user, I know it's always _rc and never -rc. Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 18:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [...] You have yet to provide an alternative for fixing the arbitrary and pointless version format restrictions that are currently in place. Create an EAPI for the required changes, fast track inclusion to a stable portage. If this is

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 17 May 2009 00:42:58 +0530 Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 18:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [...] You have yet to provide an alternative for fixing the arbitrary and pointless version format restrictions that are currently in place. Create an

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Nick Fortino
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 22:39:46 +0530 Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 17:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Don't care. Let's fix the problems we have *now* using solutions that we can

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:39:40 -0700 Nick Fortino nfort...@gmail.com wrote: Given the above, it should be clear that any argument which states some future improvement to the ebuild format will be impossible based upon making the wrong choice between proposal 1 and proposal 2 must be invalid, as

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Ravi Pinjala
Nick Fortino wrote: Such a transformation is possible, given the restrictions on arg, as well as ebuild format. Isn't this a bit circular? The whole point of wanting to change the extension is to get rid of exactly these restrictions; if you assume the restrictions, then the whole thing is kind

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Nick Fortino
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:39:40 -0700 Nick Fortino nfort...@gmail.com wrote: Given the above, it should be clear that any argument which states some future improvement to the ebuild format will be impossible based upon making the wrong choice between proposal 1 and

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Richard Freeman
Ravi Pinjala wrote: Nick Fortino wrote: Such a transformation is possible, given the restrictions on arg, as well as ebuild format. Isn't this a bit circular? The whole point of wanting to change the extension is to get rid of exactly these restrictions; if you assume the restrictions, then

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: The only way it'll be in the next ten years rather than in the next two years is if Gentoo continues its current approach of making changes require every single person to agree... Frankly, I won't be at all surprised if this thread (in some form) is still going on in

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 20:21 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [...] Can't do that. The package manager has to barf on unrecognised .ebuild files. I assume the reasons are the same as below. If this is not viable, make an unrecognised version string cause the same fallback as an unsupported

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-15 Thread David Leverton
On Friday 15 May 2009 02:42:33 George Prowse wrote: Having countered those four points I guess you agree with the other five then. Over 50% success rate (by your definition) is hardly being ignorant or trolling In that case we can assume that Patrick agrees with all my counterpoints, since he

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-15 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of the ebuild starting with EAPI= Uh, so horribly utterly and obviously wrong. inherit foo EAPI=4 where foo is both a

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-15 Thread Robert R. Russell
On Friday 15 May 2009 05:44:47 Richard Freeman wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of the ebuild starting with EAPI= Uh, so horribly utterly and

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-15 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:16:11 -0500 Robert R. Russell nahoy_kb...@hushmail.com wrote: If I understand the problem GLEP 55 is trying to solve correctly, it stems from portage's assumption that an unknown EAPI is equal to EAPI 0. Could that assumption be changed to an unknown EAPI is equal to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-15 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 00:44 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: [...] So if you were a lazy Unix coder you'd just restrict the current rules a bit so that there's only one line starting with EAPI= allowed (or maybe you just take the first or last one, but that's annoying) and if no such line matches

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-15 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 16 May 2009 00:28:36 +0530 Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote: As I've stated a long time ago, I'm for this solution. My understanding is that there are 2 objections to this: 3) It doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't allow things like version format extensions. That's the

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-15 Thread William Hubbs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:53:37PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: It can't, because it doesn't know the EAPI until it's sourced the thing using bash. Using things like += in global scope will break older bash versions to the point that they can't

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-15 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 15 May 2009 14:43:29 -0500 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:53:37PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: It can't, because it doesn't know the EAPI until it's sourced the thing using bash. Using things like += in global scope will break older bash

[gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Patrick Lauer
For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55. [http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html] The proposed solution to a problem that is never refined, in short, is to add the EAPI into the ebuild filename to make things

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: You need to know the EAPI to parse the ebuild to find the EAPI Obviously that's not true, because somehow we manage at the moment. And if one does a small restriction (which doesn't restrict current behaviour because

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread David Leverton
On Thursday 14 May 2009 19:06:51 Patrick Lauer wrote: For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55. [http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html] We agree on the latter adjective, if nothing else. The proposed solution

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
Dne čtvrtek 14 Květen 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): Where on earth are you getting the idea that GLEP 55 makes things slower? The only difference to the code with GLEP 55 is in checking file extensions against a slightly larger set of strings, which is nowhere near a measurable

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:05:52 +0200 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Where on earth are you getting the idea that GLEP 55 makes things slower? The only difference to the code with GLEP 55 is in checking file extensions against a slightly larger set of strings, which is nowhere near a

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM, David Leverton levert...@googlemail.com wrote: yourself, shell-like.   printf -v EAPI 1 is perfectly valid shell (at least if we decide to allow bash 3.1 features), and has the same effect To stir things up: Who decides this? There are more and more bash-3.1

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Robert Bridge
Patrick Lauer wrote: On Thursday 14 May 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of the ebuild starting with EAPI= Uh, so horribly utterly and obviously

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread RB
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until you answer that, it's hard to take you for anything other than a troll. Hell, I'll explain. Read paragraph 8 again. Slowly. Read it a second

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:09:58 +0200 Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote: Dne čtvrtek 14 Květen 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): Where on earth are you getting the idea that GLEP 55 makes things slower? The only difference to the code with GLEP 55 is in checking file extensions

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:17:24 -0600 RB aoz@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until you answer that, it's hard to take you for anything other than a troll.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Thursday 14 May 2009 21:20:18 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:17:24 -0600 RB aoz@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until you answer

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:15:28 -0500 Jeremy Olexa darks...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM, David Leverton levert...@googlemail.com wrote: yourself, shell-like.   printf -v EAPI 1 is perfectly valid shell (at least if we decide to allow bash 3.1 features), and has the same

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:24:14 +0200 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: so with glep55 caching it is actually slower! There's no possible way that can make sense. Whatever he's claiming by that is obviously nonsense. Ah. I was not precise enough. Let me rephrase it in less

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Ben de Groot
Patrick Lauer wrote: For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55. [http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html] The proposed solution to a problem that is never refined, This, in my opinion, is the crux of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Peter Alfredsen
On Thu, 14 May 2009 22:03:22 +0200 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: I concur that speaking for myself, I don't understand the issue. And it looks like many others don't either. So if anyone wants to promote this GLEP, their job is clear: make people understand what the issue is here, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread William Hubbs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I realize that I'm asking this very late in the discussion, so please bear with me if it has been hashed before. On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:16:23PM +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote: We need a mechanism to be able to use newer bash-features in

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Thursday 14 May 2009 23:53:37 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:49:09 -0500 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: The second solution seems to be the better one because it does not go against standards. For example, we see extentions like .c, .py and .pl, instead of

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-14 Thread George Prowse
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: You need to know the EAPI to parse the ebuild to find the EAPI Obviously that's not true, because somehow we manage at the moment. And if one does a small restriction (which doesn't restrict