Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:07:21 +0100 > Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > It's illegal, according to PMS. It also won't work with Paludis, >> > since phase function definitions aren't made available until just >> > before that phase executes (there is a reason for this -- it >> > provides us with a way of identifying whether a package has a >> > particular phase or not). >> > >> That seems a bit implementation-specific; how one alternative package >> manager generates that metadata isn't important (though it does seem >> odd that you think it has to be done at that point) nor should it get >> in the way. > > The whole point of PMS is that it provides a way to avoid relying upon > implementation specific things. There are currently no packages that > rely upon calling phase functions in the wrong place It wasn't about calling it in the wrong place, it was about how you test for whether the ebuild+eclasses provide a function, or use a phase.
> and there are > good reasons a package manager might want to avoid implementing things > in a way such that doing so is legal, so we don't allow it. > Sure let's keep constraining what the bash side of things can do, as that's nothing to do with the package manager implementation. > Also, I don't think it has to be done at that point. I think it's > convenient to do it at that point, and when combined with several other > reasons doing it that way is the best option. > Yes, a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in pure bullsh^W obfuscation is always such fun. > Strange how you repeatedly seem to pop up in favour of doing whatever > you think will cause most inconvenience to Paludis, though... > Strange how you think you can read my mind.. I actually think that not providing functions an ebuild might call in a phase, during the actual install, is not such a good way for the mangler to ascertain ahead of time whether or not that phase will be needed, *irrespective* of how any extant implementation does it. But as you always remind me, I don't know enough to comment-- because you say so. I actually hesitated to get into that discussion with you. I did so as I wanted to query the design decision. You know, a technical _discussion_.. Thanks for reminding me again how incapable of that you are, unless you think there is some political capital to be gained.
