Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:43:10 +0100 Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have updated the GLEP, hopefully it is less confusing now and hence the discussion will be more technical. Still doesn't address my concerns, namely: - silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is a blocker for me) - doesn't mention compability issues on the dev side (minor) Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:33:51 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is a blocker for me) That already happened with EAPI 1 and slot deps. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]
On Monday 31 of December 2007 15:33:51 Marius Mauch wrote: Still doesn't address my concerns, namely: - silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is a blocker for me) And what is the reason for not doing exactly that? Seems logical to me. And btw. slot deps added in EAPI 1 seems to have similiar impact, you can't use them in ebuilds using EAPI 0 nor in profiles/. - doesn't mention compability issues on the dev side (minor) Aren't new EAPIs introducing the same problem already? Devs should use up to date tools, and especially the devs running some checks on the whole tree. -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:40:57 + Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:33:51 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - silently expands the scope of EAPI beyond ebuild contents (which is a blocker for me) That already happened with EAPI 1 and slot deps. Not really. Just because slot deps are included in EAPI 1 doesn't mean that they have to be supported everywhere. The complete atom specification should be a separate versioned document, and EAPI references version X of it and the profile specification references version Y, simple as that. Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]
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 http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.txt Haven't read the previous discussion, apologies if this has been clarified already, but I think it would be good to answer the following question in the GLEP: 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 clear to me why your proposal isn't exactly that. Thanks, Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) [2]
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 clear to me why your proposal isn't exactly that. That's the goal, yes. The Specification part shows how to do that in a backward compatible way and the Application part says how is the new format supposed to be used. But seeing it's not clear enough I will look into it. -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
