On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 05:50:11 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You pretty much have to have a way of mapping an EAPI version onto
> > an absolute version if you want to handle it sanely.
>
> Right, and that's likely to cause a mess in the long run IMO.
Eh, it's already necessary if
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:09:33 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:46:06 +0100
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The issue is with comparison rules. For the current use case that's
> > not an issue as it's simply a superset, so we could just use the
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:46:06 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue is with comparison rules. For the current use case that's
> not an issue as it's simply a superset, so we could just use the new
> rules for everything. But if the rules are changed in an incompatible
> way, whic
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:03:12 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:26:27 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager has
> > > to export to an ebuild/eclass. That i
On Dec 28, 2007 1:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:25:13 +0100
> "Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 2007 1:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There's no particular reason that new
> > > version formats can'
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:25:13 +0100
"Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2007 1:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's no particular reason that new
> > version formats can't be introduced in a new EAPI so long as the
> > version strings don't appear in
On Dec 28, 2007 1:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's no particular reason that new
> version formats can't be introduced in a new EAPI so long as the
> version strings don't appear in ebuilds using older EAPIs or in
> profiles. Ditto for naming rules.
>
Errr... so should
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:26:27 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager has
> > to export to an ebuild/eclass. That includes syntax and semantics
> > of exported and expected functions and variables (IOW th
On Dec 27, 2007 11:40 PM, Doug Klima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[... EAPI is stuff PM supports/exports to the ebuild ...]
> Logical and proper to me.
Actually, when I'm asked what EAPI is, I just say "EAPI is a standard
definition for the ebuild structure, implying supporting features from
the pac
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:10:13 +0100
>> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ok, that seems a fine definition of what an eapi is. Everybody agrees on it?
>>>
>> Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager h
Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:10:13 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Ok, that seems a fine definition of what an eapi is. Everybody agrees on it?
>
> Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager has to export
> to an ebuild/eclass. That includ
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:10:13 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, that seems a fine definition of what an eapi is. Everybody agrees on it?
Nope. EAPI (from my POV) defines the API that a package manager has to export
to an ebuild/eclass. That includes syntax and semantics of expor
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:49:32 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When a new version comes out, we should educate developers about it
>> and encourage them to convert their ebuilds to use new EAPI.
>
> No, we shouldn't. People should use new EAPIs as necessary, n
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:49:32 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When a new version comes out, we should educate developers about it
> and encourage them to convert their ebuilds to use new EAPI.
No, we shouldn't. People should use new EAPIs as necessary, not as soon
as possible.
> If we
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Thursday 20 December 2007 20:01:55 Zhang Le wrote:
>> IMO, we can not have more than two EAPI's simultaneously.
>
> That defeats the whole purpose of having EAPIs. Which is to keep a sane
> upgrade path...
Upgrading happens between two versions.
When a new version
On Thursday 20 December 2007 20:01:55 Zhang Le wrote:
> IMO, we can not have more than two EAPI's simultaneously.
That defeats the whole purpose of having EAPIs. Which is to keep a sane
upgrade path...
--
Bo Andresen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:15:10 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we should first decide on how EAPI works.
That was decided a long time ago.
> Just because we need a new feature, then we produce a new EAPI?
> I think that is not feasible, and will confuse developers.
Uh... Yes. I
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:23:08 +0800
> Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I really don't see the necessity to have so many EAPI's
>
> A new EAPI is needed for new features, so new EAPIs will be needed in
> the future. Equally, migrating the whole tree at once to newer
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:23:08 +0800
Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Quite the opposite. EAPI's are designed to live happily together in
> > the same repository. A current example: most (or lots...) ebuilds in
> > the tree don't need EAPI="1" and it's pointless to migrate all of
> > them. We
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 8:01 PM, Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How many EAPI's do we have now?
>
> In Portage tree we have "0" (default) and "1". There are others in
> external projects, for example "prefix" (in Gentoo/Alt:Prefix) or
> "paludis-1" (used in paludis reposi
On Dec 20, 2007 8:01 PM, Zhang Le <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How many EAPI's do we have now?
In Portage tree we have "0" (default) and "1". There are others in
external projects, for example "prefix" (in Gentoo/Alt:Prefix) or
"paludis-1" (used in paludis repositories).
> Where is the detailed
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Before spending even more time on it, could we try to come up with a
> definition of what eapi is, which problem is trying to solve and put
> that somewhere that isn't a long thread or an handful of threads
> scattered across mailing lists.
I think we also need to know:
How m
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:31:14 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Before spending even more time on it, could we try to come up with a
>> definition of what eapi is, which problem is trying to solve and put
>> that somewhere that isn't a long thread or an hand
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 03:31 Thu 20 Dec , Luca Barbato wrote:
>> Before spending even more time on it, could we try to come up with a
>> definition of what eapi is, which problem is trying to solve and put
>> that somewhere that isn't a long thread or an handful of threads
>> scattered acr
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:31:14 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Before spending even more time on it, could we try to come up with a
> definition of what eapi is, which problem is trying to solve and put
> that somewhere that isn't a long thread or an handful of threads
> scattered acr
On 03:31 Thu 20 Dec , Luca Barbato wrote:
> Before spending even more time on it, could we try to come up with a
> definition of what eapi is, which problem is trying to solve and put
> that somewhere that isn't a long thread or an handful of threads
> scattered across mailing lists.
>
> Then
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 23:20 Mon 17 Dec , Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>> Abstract
>>
>>
>> This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for ebuilds (for
>> example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
>>
>> Motivation
>> ==
>>
>> Including EAPI in the ebuild file extension has
27 matches
Mail list logo
