[gentoo-dev] GLEP 42?

[gentoo-dev] GLEP 42?

[Stuart Herbert]

Hi,

Whatever happened to the work to implement GLEP 42?  Is there anyone
actively working on this atm?

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
--
Stuart Herbert                                          stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                   http://www.gentoo.org/
                                            http://blog.stuartherbert.com/

GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--



-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 491 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:59:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert <stuart@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Whatever happened to the work to implement GLEP 42?  Is there anyone
| actively working on this atm?

There's a full implementation in Paludis. I believe Christel was
working on backporting it to the legacy package manager.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42?

[Zac Medico]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Whatever happened to the work to implement GLEP 42?  Is there anyone
> actively working on this atm?

It's been on my todo list, but I haven't gotten around to it yet due
to other portage work that's kept me extremely busy.  I hope to get
GLEP 42 implemented soon though.

On the bright side, portage-2.1.2 [1] has made recent progress on
quite a few important and long standing bugs.  Here are descriptions
of some of the recent changes:

* Profiles support multiple inheritance.
* CONFIG_PROTECT and CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK both support files (not
just directories).
* Collision protection handles symlinks properly.
* Dependencies can be satisfied by installed packages that do not
have matching ebuilds in the portage tree or overlay.
* Emerge automatically ignores blockers that are made irrelevant by
an upgrade.
* Emerge builds a complete dependency graph in order to ensure
correct merge order and detection of circular dependencies.
* The world and system sets allow automatic update of all installed
slots.
* DEPEND atoms support SLOT dependencies of the form
${CATEGORY}/${PN}:${SLOT}.

Zac

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFLSvG/ejvha5XGaMRArOGAKDNpWrM6t6yOI2UWpzdSMNZI5aDCQCeOGGr
2WPgtPacSdHZFWPzib/H4v8=
=n+s3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42?

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 208 bytes --]

Zac Medico wrote:
> * DEPEND atoms support SLOT dependencies of the form
> ${CATEGORY}/${PN}:${SLOT}.

No way, it happened!!1111

So when can we start actually using this feature?

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42?

[Zac Medico]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> * DEPEND atoms support SLOT dependencies of the form
>> ${CATEGORY}/${PN}:${SLOT}.
> 
> No way, it happened!!1111
> 
> So when can we start actually using this feature?

We can either wait until several months after the feature is
available in release media, or else do an EAPI bump (whichever comes
sooner).  Ideally, an EAPI bump will include a number of major
changes.  Other features that I think we should consider for an EAPI
bump are:

1) Grouping of package atom restrictions [1].
2) Default USE flags at the ebuild and/or profile level [2].
3) Ebuild helpers as functions that die automatically [3].
4) Elimination of the implicit RDEPEND "feature" [4].

The first EAPI bump should probably be proposed as a GLEP and should
include features that have been proposed/implemented as part of
other GLEPs.

Zac

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4315
[2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61732
[3] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138792
[4] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135945
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFLT11/ejvha5XGaMRAu/EAKCh5pX5yM7OHF7uHo8e6EzSV2QzRgCeJFyg
fe6FbBk+YGLajtn+puYG8H8=
=Mp3N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42?

[Stuart Herbert]

Hi Zac,

This is all good news.

On 10/11/06, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 2) Default USE flags at the ebuild and/or profile level [2].

This one would be very very useful for Seeds, if we can set per-ebuild
USE flags at the profile level.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42?

[Brian Jackson]

On Oct 11, 2006, at 12:37 PM, Zac Medico wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
>> Whatever happened to the work to implement GLEP 42?  Is there anyone
>> actively working on this atm?
>
> It's been on my todo list, but I haven't gotten around to it yet due
> to other portage work that's kept me extremely busy.  I hope to get
> GLEP 42 implemented soon though.
>
> On the bright side, portage-2.1.2 [1] has made recent progress on
> quite a few important and long standing bugs.  Here are descriptions
> of some of the recent changes:
>
> * Profiles support multiple inheritance.
> * CONFIG_PROTECT and CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK both support files (not
> just directories).
> * Collision protection handles symlinks properly.
> * Dependencies can be satisfied by installed packages that do not
> have matching ebuilds in the portage tree or overlay.
> * Emerge automatically ignores blockers that are made irrelevant by
> an upgrade.
> * Emerge builds a complete dependency graph in order to ensure
> correct merge order and detection of circular dependencies.
> * The world and system sets allow automatic update of all installed
> slots.
> * DEPEND atoms support SLOT dependencies of the form
> ${CATEGORY}/${PN}:${SLOT}.

I thought we were eventually going to use that format to specify deps  
with specific USE set.

--Iggy

>
> Zac
>
> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147007
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFFLSvG/ejvha5XGaMRArOGAKDNpWrM6t6yOI2UWpzdSMNZI5aDCQCeOGGr
> 2WPgtPacSdHZFWPzib/H4v8=
> =n+s3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> -- 
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 409 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:36:16 -0500 Brian Jackson <iggy@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| > ${CATEGORY}/${PN}:${SLOT}.
| 
| I thought we were eventually going to use that format to specify
| deps with specific USE set.

That's [use].

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42?

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 516 bytes --]

On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:36:16 -0500 Brian Jackson <iggy@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | > ${CATEGORY}/${PN}:${SLOT}.
> | 
> | I thought we were eventually going to use that format to specify
> | deps with specific USE set.
> 
> That's [use].

I assume it is really [list of use] right?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 830 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:30:03 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:36:16 -0500 Brian Jackson <iggy@gentoo.org>
| > wrote:
| > | > ${CATEGORY}/${PN}:${SLOT}.
| > | 
| > | I thought we were eventually going to use that format to specify
| > | deps with specific USE set.
| > 
| > That's [use].
| 
| I assume it is really [list of use] right?

I think cat/pkg:slot[foo][-bar][baz] or opcat/pkg-ver:slot[foo][-bar]
was what was decided upon. That's how paludis does it, but it's easy
enough to tweak if people prefer something else...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:30:03 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
> <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:36:16 -0500 Brian Jackson <iggy@gentoo.org>
> | > wrote:
> | > | > ${CATEGORY}/${PN}:${SLOT}.
> | > |
> | > | I thought we were eventually going to use that format to specify
> | > | deps with specific USE set.
> | >
> | > That's [use].
> |
> | I assume it is really [list of use] right?
>
> I think cat/pkg:slot[foo][-bar][baz] or opcat/pkg-ver:slot[foo][-bar]
> was what was decided upon. That's how paludis does it, but it's easy
> enough to tweak if people prefer something else...

What's the point of all the square brackets?  Is there some benefit over
just [foo -bar baz]?

Michael Sterrett
   -Mr. Bones.-
mr_bones_@gentoo.org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1175 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 03:52:08PM -0400, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:30:03 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
> ><wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >| On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >| > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:36:16 -0500 Brian Jackson <iggy@gentoo.org>
> >| > wrote:
> >| > | > ${CATEGORY}/${PN}:${SLOT}.
> >| > |
> >| > | I thought we were eventually going to use that format to specify
> >| > | deps with specific USE set.
> >| >
> >| > That's [use].
> >|
> >| I assume it is really [list of use] right?
> >
> >I think cat/pkg:slot[foo][-bar][baz] or opcat/pkg-ver:slot[foo][-bar]
> >was what was decided upon. That's how paludis does it, but it's easy
> >enough to tweak if people prefer something else...
> 
> What's the point of all the square brackets?  Is there some benefit over
> just [foo -bar baz]?

Been awhile, but the original syntax being pushed was

cat/pkg:slot1,slot2
cat/pkg[use1_on,-use2_off,-use3_on]

Somewhat prefer the spaces in use rather then commas personally also, 
but implemented the syntax I recalled.

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 182 bytes --]

Brian Harring wrote:
> cat/pkg[use1_on,-use2_off,-use3_on]

You mean "use3_on", without the minus sign, right?

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 528 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:52:08 -0400 (EDT) "Michael Sterrett -Mr.
Bones.-" <msterret@coat.com> wrote:
| What's the point of all the square brackets?  Is there some benefit
| over just [foo -bar baz]?

Spaces in dep atoms would be highly evil, since it'd mean they were no
longer simply space delimited. Commas [foo,-bar,baz] would be fine...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: GLEP 42?

[Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:52:08 -0400 (EDT) "Michael Sterrett -Mr.
> Bones.-" <msterret@coat.com> wrote:
> | What's the point of all the square brackets?  Is there some benefit
> | over just [foo -bar baz]?
>
> Spaces in dep atoms would be highly evil, since it'd mean they were no
> longer simply space delimited. Commas [foo,-bar,baz] would be fine...

I could live with [foo,-bar,baz].

Michael Sterrett
   -Mr. Bones.-
mr_bones_@gentoo.org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Stuart Herbert]

On 10/11/06, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
> Spaces in dep atoms would be highly evil, since it'd mean they were no
> longer simply space delimited. Commas [foo,-bar,baz] would be fine...

Write a better parser then :P

We use space-delimited USE flags everywhere else.  It would make a lot
of sense to keep it consistent here.

Best regards,
Stu
--
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 784 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:08:31 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
<stuart.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:
| On 10/11/06, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
| > Spaces in dep atoms would be highly evil, since it'd mean they were
| > no longer simply space delimited. Commas [foo,-bar,baz] would be
| > fine...
| 
| Write a better parser then :P

Not an issue for me. It's an issue for random people writing scripts,
for people using command line things and for people who don't want to
use a full parser framework for some quick hack. There's no need to
make things harder for random developers here.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Stuart Herbert]

On 10/11/06, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
> Not an issue for me. It's an issue for random people writing scripts,
> for people using command line things and for people who don't want to
> use a full parser framework for some quick hack. There's no need to
> make things harder for random developers here.

Wouldn't a resolver API be the better approach to solving that?  We're
not here to support x-random number of independent, unofficial
implementations of atom parsers.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 830 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:00:05 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
<stuart.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:
| On 10/11/06, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
| > Not an issue for me. It's an issue for random people writing
| > scripts, for people using command line things and for people who
| > don't want to use a full parser framework for some quick hack.
| > There's no need to make things harder for random developers here.
| 
| Wouldn't a resolver API be the better approach to solving that?

Depends upon the task. There's no point forcing people to use a huge
API for everything just because someone wants to use spaces rather than
commas.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Natanael Copa]

On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 22:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:08:31 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
> <stuart.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:
> | On 10/11/06, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
> | > Spaces in dep atoms would be highly evil, since it'd mean they were
> | > no longer simply space delimited. Commas [foo,-bar,baz] would be
> | > fine...
> | 
> | Write a better parser then :P
> 
> Not an issue for me. It's an issue for random people writing scripts,
> for people using command line things and for people who don't want to
> use a full parser framework for some quick hack. There's no need to
> make things harder for random developers here.

I tried to write some scripts some time ago and it was completely
horrible. I wish more people would have been thinking like Ciaran
earlier.

btw.. I keep hearing about this paladius. Is it more script-friendly
than emerge?

--
Natanael Copa

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 413 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:24:36 +0200 Natanael Copa
<natanael.copa@gmail.com> wrote:
| btw.. I keep hearing about this paladius. Is it more script-friendly
| than emerge?

Once we get the Ruby interface fleshed out it will be...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Paladius (was: GLEP 42?)

[Natanael Copa]

On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 16:18 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:24:36 +0200 Natanael Copa
> <natanael.copa@gmail.com> wrote:
> | btw.. I keep hearing about this paladius. Is it more script-friendly
> | than emerge?
> 
> Once we get the Ruby interface fleshed out it will be...

What about shell scripts?

Is it one (or few) big fat executable that can do everything windows
style, or is it small cooperating executables unix style?

Is fancy/pretty features like colors and prytty output more important
than easy-to-use with pipes in shell scripts?

--
Natanael Copa

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Paladius (was: GLEP 42?)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1278 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:41:20 +0200 Natanael Copa
<natanael.copa@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 16:18 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:24:36 +0200 Natanael Copa
| > <natanael.copa@gmail.com> wrote:
| > | btw.. I keep hearing about this paladius. Is it more
| > | script-friendly than emerge?
| > 
| > Once we get the Ruby interface fleshed out it will be...
| 
| What about shell scripts?
| 
| Is it one (or few) big fat executable that can do everything windows
| style, or is it small cooperating executables unix style?

It's a .so file (well, several .so files) written in C++, plus
supporting bash scripts for ebuildy things. There're several client
apps available, most of which are reasonably shell script friendly for
small things. For complex tasks you're better off using the API rather
than pipes.

| Is fancy/pretty features like colors and prytty output more important
| than easy-to-use with pipes in shell scripts?

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Having said that, Ruby is
a good shell scripting language...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Andrew Gaffney]

Natanael Copa wrote:
> btw.. I keep hearing about this paladius. Is it more script-friendly
> than emerge?

It's "paludis", and no, the API is currently C++ only, afaik. There are ruby 
bindings in the works, though. The other alternative, pkgcore, has a python 
API...as does portage itself. None of the options have an interface that's 
usable via a bash script.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney                            http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer                                   Installer Project
Today's lesson in political correctness:      "Go asphyxiate on a phallus"
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Stephen Bennett]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:03:41 -0500
Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@gentoo.org> wrote:

> It's "paludis", and no, the API is currently C++ only, afaik. There
> are ruby bindings in the works, though. The other alternative,
> pkgcore, has a python API...as does portage itself. None of the
> options have an interface that's usable via a bash script.

Paludis also has python bindings in the works. And the regular paludis
command-line is usable via bash scripts, though for obvious reasons not
as flexible as the other languages would be.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Stephen Bennett]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:08:31 +0100
"Stuart Herbert" <stuart.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:

> We use space-delimited USE flags everywhere else.  It would make a lot
> of sense to keep it consistent here.

We also use space-delimited depend atoms everywhere else. It makes no
sense to break that when a comma works equally well.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Stuart Herbert]

On 10/11/06, Stephen Bennett <spb@gentoo.org> wrote:
> We also use space-delimited depend atoms everywhere else. It makes no
> sense to break that when a comma works equally well.

I'm sorry, are you telling everyone that it's too difficult for you to
write an ungreedy regex that also tests for the possibility of a list
bounded by [ and ] being part of an atom?

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Stephen Bennett]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:52:42 +0100
"Stuart Herbert" <stuart.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry, are you telling everyone that it's too difficult for you to
> write an ungreedy regex that also tests for the possibility of a list
> bounded by [ and ] being part of an atom?

No. I'm saying that it's more effort than simply tokenising by spaces,
and that there's absolutely no benefit in making anyone expend that
effort.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1205 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:52:42 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
<stuart.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:
| On 10/11/06, Stephen Bennett <spb@gentoo.org> wrote:
| > We also use space-delimited depend atoms everywhere else. It makes
| > no sense to break that when a comma works equally well.
| 
| I'm sorry, are you telling everyone that it's too difficult for you to
| write an ungreedy regex that also tests for the possibility of a list
| bounded by [ and ] being part of an atom?

We are not talking about us. We have access to a full parser that could
very easily be told to handle spaces, backspaces, tabs and anything
else you'd care to use. It can even go beyond the single lookahead
element that's required here.

No. We're talking about other developers and users who just want to do
a quick script without having to care about all that. You know, not
making design decisions that have no affect on the top 1% but that
screw over significant parts of the remainder just for the sake of
using a space over a comma.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42?

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Mittwoch, 11. Oktober 2006 20:36 schrieb Brian Jackson:
> On Oct 11, 2006, at 12:37 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
encies.
> > * The world and system sets allow automatic update of all installed
> > slots.
> > * DEPEND atoms support SLOT dependencies of the form
> > ${CATEGORY}/${PN}:${SLOT}.
Yay!

> I thought we were eventually going to use that format to specify deps
> with specific USE set.
Nope, that was ${CATEGORY}/${PN}[foo].

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list