Thomas Pani wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:59:14 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And file extension like welcome.html.fr is quite self-explanatory.
But an total outsider has no chance to deduce what the 1 in ebuild-1
means on his own.
A total outsider doesn't
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
ridiculous.
IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other to be
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
On Friday 21 December 2007 05:25:00 Zhang Le wrote:
The question is really simple.
Whether we should have two different place to define EAPI?
We need two places because it wasn't implemented properly in the first place
and we want to retain backwards compatibility
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
As long as there is an agreement in any given point of time, it is OK.
Such as, put your EAPI definition on the first line of your ebuild,
like EAPI=value
No good for package managers written before the agreement.
Why not force user to upgrade their PM?
After all,
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:59:53 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's so that the ebuild's EAPI can be extracted. The way things are
currently, there is no way to get an ebuild's EAPI without already
knowing its EAPI.
Like I said, it's trivial to extract a line
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other to be quiet in a
discussion which is supposed to be open to everyone who cares about
it.
It's open to anyone who cares about it and is
Luca Barbato wrote:
Still I think we should just postpone this discussion and get a 2008.0 out.
And postpone until some doc is out.
--
Zhang Le, Robert
GPG key ID: 1E4E2973
Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1E4E 2973
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:55:50 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Note *the way things are currently*. If you think this is untrue,
provide an algorithm that will correctly give the EAPI of any
current or future ebuild given that ebuild's filename (hint: you
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:49:10 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
As long as there is an agreement in any given point of time, it is
OK. Such as, put your EAPI definition on the first line of your
ebuild, like EAPI=value
No good for package managers written
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:47:53 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, if we decide to use .ebuild-1, will we provide a ebuild file for
each EAPI for a specific version of software?
The GLEP covers this. There's no sensible way of doing so.
I guess probably not, coz that is a huge waste of
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:01:23 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luca Barbato wrote:
Still I think we should just postpone this discussion and get a
2008.0 out.
And postpone until some doc is out.
There is absolutely no need for such a doc. You don't need to
understand every last
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:01:23 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luca Barbato wrote:
Still I think we should just postpone this discussion and get a
2008.0 out.
And postpone until some doc is out.
There is absolutely no need for such a doc. You don't need to
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec
2007 07:12:28 +:
Funny thing is I think the USE-flag metadata thing would have breezed
through as a GLEP; I don't recall one person saying they thought it was
a bad idea.
But you do recall
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
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
The package manger would have to look for ebuilds in the main
dir and all the subdirs in case it doesn't have/can't use the cache.
No, it would have to check only for subdirectories named after known and
supported EAPIs.
Cheers,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub more beer
As one of those 'users' (an AT actually), I would find having the eapi
in the filename quite annoying - especially having several ebuilds in
the tree that differ _only_ in their eapi number (and doing different
things). It just Seems Wrong - nearly all binary files do
versioning/format information
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:55:50 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Note *the way things are currently*. If you think this is untrue,
provide an algorithm that will correctly give the EAPI of any
current or future ebuild given that ebuild's
Simon Cooper wrote:
nearly all binary files do versioning/format information inside the
files
Think of different EAPIs as different set of rules for the ebuild
contents. If you accept this, you can easily define new EAPI as a new
format for ebuilds. It's nice that current EAPI 1 is backwards
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:49:10 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
As long as there is an agreement in any given point of time, it is
OK. Such as, put your EAPI definition on the first line of your
ebuild, like EAPI=value
No good for package
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:35:07
+:
Oh yeah I forgot, McCreesh thinks they're all idiots[1], so let's just
do what he says.
[1]
http://lab.obsethryl.eu/content/paludis-gentoo-and-ciaran-mccreesh-
uncensored
I read the
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:27:31 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I am not sick of EAPI's. You see? I am sick of so *many* EAPI's.
What? All two of them that you need to know about, where the second
one is the first one with three new features?
Sorry, I made
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec
2007 07:13:28 +:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:19:45 +0100
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
So please make those
Zhang Le wrote:
I have just created a page of EAPI on wikipedia, let's improve it together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAPI
And later convert it to guidexml and put it on gentoo.org, of course.
--
Zhang Le, Robert
GPG key ID: 1E4E2973
Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 04:58:28PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other to be quiet in a
discussion which is supposed to be open to everyone who cares about
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 07:09:30AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:41:02 +0200
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Piotr Jaroszyński kirjoitti:
This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for
ebuilds (for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
It seems
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
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:53:48 +
Simon Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As one of those 'users' (an AT actually), I would find having the eapi
in the filename quite annoying - especially having several ebuilds in
the tree that differ _only_ in their eapi number (and doing different
things).
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:37:37 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:01:23 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luca Barbato wrote:
Still I think we should just postpone this discussion and get a
2008.0 out.
And postpone until some doc
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 09:09:27 Zhang Le wrote:
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 12:03:33 Duncan wrote:
I actually thought the point was pretty effective, given what it was in
reply to. If it were me the elementary school reply was made to, I'd
have felt it within my rights to ask for an apology. I therefore
considered the ietf remark a
On 2007/12/22, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The filename solution is by far the best -- it's the only one that
hasn't had any technical objections raised to it.
And can you remind us what technical objection, if any, has been raised
against the EAPI set in contents with enough
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 10:50:40 Jan Kundrát wrote:
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
The package manger would have to look for ebuilds in the main
dir and all the subdirs in case it doesn't have/can't use the cache.
No, it would have to check only for subdirectories named after known and
On Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:14:24 +0100
There is no way for an eclass to throw an error. Nor, with the current
way Portage implements EAPI, is there a way to add such a way.
It's not perfect, but
eclass_pkg_setup() {
something_wrong die
}
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 04:58:28PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:09:27 +0800
Zhang Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, what is more ridiculous is keeping ask other to be quiet in a
discussion which is supposed to be open to
Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec 2007
15:50:43 +0100:
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 12:03:33 Duncan wrote:
If it were me the elementary school reply was made to, I'd
have felt it within my rights to ask for an apology. I
Richard Freeman wrote:
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 06:01:04PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
All could be get before sourcing.
I know you'd say people will use all syntaxes to define. But how many are
there? EAPI=1, EAPI=1 these are the two ways currently used in tree.
A simple
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 06:01:04PM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
Your algorithm:
Does not work for existing ebuilds that have implicit EAPI 0.
That's obvious. If no suffix, just treat it as EAPI 0.
I thought I don't need to say this explicitly.
'# Copyright 1999-2007
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
I have updated the GLEP, hopefully it is less confusing now and hence
the discussion will be more technical.
As I still didn't get the ok to commit from our glep folks, read the
most current version here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 18:56:12 Daniel Drake wrote:
Why (in terms of your GLEP) are you still allowing ebuilds to set EAPI
inside the ebuild?
It seems that one approach you might take is to move the EAPI selection
into the filename and remove it from the ebuild itself, and it's not
Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 22 Dec 2007
16:43:10 +0100:
Abstract
This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for ebuilds
(for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
This one does seem a marked improvement. Thanks.
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 19:26:08 Duncan wrote:
I made this suggestion earlier but it was deep in a subthread and perhaps
missed. Else, maybe it didn't reach you in time for this update.
Anyway, here it is again:
(snip)
Syntax:
PF.ebuild[-EAPI]
Thanks, added syntax specification
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
Their docs are usually the source.
And files under Documentation
And they have a policy which requires them to write a doc for any new
feature/functionality to be accepted
--
Zhang Le, Robert
GPG key ID: 1E4E2973
Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:24:06 +0100
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not if we move the rsync path properly so
- older pm sync to a minimal try apt to upgrading portage and nothing
else
- newer sync to the full tree now supporting the newer an better and
honey
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:23:13 +0100
Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007/12/22, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The filename solution is by far the best -- it's the only one that
hasn't had any technical objections raised to it.
And can you remind us what
This email probably isn't necessary, and most people won't care about this.
However, sending it was one of robbat2's terms for renaming this SVN repo, so
here it is :P
The current repo name 'gimli' was the original name of the project a long time
ago. The name of the project is now Scire, and
45 matches
Mail list logo
