[gentoo-dev] [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[Zac Medico]

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

Hi everyone,

Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in EAPI-1.
Some of the features are already implemented but can't be used in the portage
tree until we do an EAPI bump. The ones that are currently implemented include
slot deps [2] and iuse defaults [3]. Are these features important enough to
warrant an EAPI bump or should we wait for more features to materialize?

Zac

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174380
[2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174405
[3] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174410
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGkrOF/ejvha5XGaMRArFGAKC+L57IUOy6YxjS02pn4xyv7VkvvgCg4Qxd
mE4HfMS4OotYKtW4Eql3N9s=
=OL5S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 802 bytes --]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:15:36 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in
> EAPI-1. Some of the features are already implemented but can't be
> used in the portage tree until we do an EAPI bump. The ones that are
> currently implemented include slot deps [2] and iuse defaults [3].
> Are these features important enough to warrant an EAPI bump or should
> we wait for more features to materialize?

No point waiting when there're useful things that can be done straight
away. Slot deps at least meet that.

As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
really offer any benefit over package.use?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 673 bytes --]

On Monday 09 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
> the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
> really offer any benefit over package.use?

where ?  i have yet to see an objection to IUSE defaults and plenty of 
support.  in fact, the exact opposite makes sense: it *decreases* 
maintenance.  time and again having information split between an ebuild and 
the profiles/ directory has resulted in bit rot.  having all the information 
in the ebuild allows for trivial changes on a per-ebuild basis and not 
needing to update multiple files in unrelated trees.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 553 bytes --]

Zac Medico kirjoitti:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in EAPI-1.
> Some of the features are already implemented but can't be used in the portage
> tree until we do an EAPI bump. The ones that are currently implemented include
> slot deps [2] and iuse defaults [3]. Are these features important enough to
> warrant an EAPI bump or should we wait for more features to materialize?
> 

I know Java would heavily use slot deps. What is the ETA for use based
depends?

Regards,
Petteri


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[Zac Medico]

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

Petteri Räty wrote:
> Zac Medico kirjoitti:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in EAPI-1.
>> Some of the features are already implemented but can't be used in the portage
>> tree until we do an EAPI bump. The ones that are currently implemented include
>> slot deps [2] and iuse defaults [3]. Are these features important enough to
>> warrant an EAPI bump or should we wait for more features to materialize?
>>
> 
> I know Java would heavily use slot deps. What is the ETA for use based
> depends?

Hopefully within 2 months or so.  I'm planning to implement the infrastructure
that's necessary for it together with other stuff that will be needed for the
new dependency resolver.  The exact time that it will be ready is difficult to
estimate because it depends on how much time I have to spend on it and how
fruitful the time is, both of which vary a lot.

Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGk61G/ejvha5XGaMRAop7AJ98ulIK/24Obs70t/40XWmIke4XpwCbBT1X
8gBX20/Bt9XHM9UWgyvQWp0=
=AfXK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1223 bytes --]

Zac Medico kirjoitti:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Zac Medico kirjoitti:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in EAPI-1.
>>> Some of the features are already implemented but can't be used in the portage
>>> tree until we do an EAPI bump. The ones that are currently implemented include
>>> slot deps [2] and iuse defaults [3]. Are these features important enough to
>>> warrant an EAPI bump or should we wait for more features to materialize?
>>>
>> I know Java would heavily use slot deps. What is the ETA for use based
>> depends?
> 
> Hopefully within 2 months or so.  I'm planning to implement the infrastructure
> that's necessary for it together with other stuff that will be needed for the
> new dependency resolver.  The exact time that it will be ready is difficult to
> estimate because it depends on how much time I have to spend on it and how
> fruitful the time is, both of which vary a lot.
> 
> Zac

Well thinking that it will get some time to write the EAPI-1 spec and
getting it approved by the council it will be probably useful to put it
in initially and see where Portage is when it comes time to vote.

Regards,
Petteri


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 485 bytes --]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:50:47 +0300
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Well thinking that it will get some time to write the EAPI-1 spec and
> getting it approved by the council it will be probably useful to put
> it in initially and see where Portage is when it comes time to vote.

If EAPI-1 is slot deps and IUSE defaults, the spec can easily be done
within a day. PMS is written to allow additions of that nature to be
done trivially.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 629 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:50:47 +0300
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Well thinking that it will get some time to write the EAPI-1 spec and
>> getting it approved by the council it will be probably useful to put
>> it in initially and see where Portage is when it comes time to vote.
> 
> If EAPI-1 is slot deps and IUSE defaults, the spec can easily be done
> within a day. PMS is written to allow additions of that nature to be
> done trivially.
> 

Written maybe but it should be discussed on gentoo-dev too I would give
a week or two at least.

Regards,
Petteri


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 450 bytes --]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:26:59 +0300
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Written maybe but it should be discussed on gentoo-dev too I would
> give a week or two at least.

Well, I believe the idea here was to get out the already-implemented,
already-agreed-upon, highly useful, low cost stuff as soon as possible.
Hence slot deps... There's no technical reason for slot deps not to be
available right now.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 506 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:26:59 +0300
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Written maybe but it should be discussed on gentoo-dev too I would
>> give a week or two at least.
> 
> Well, I believe the idea here was to get out the already-implemented,
> already-agreed-upon, highly useful, low cost stuff as soon as possible.
> Hence slot deps... There's no technical reason for slot deps not to be
> available right now.
> 

Agreed.

Regards,
Petteri


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

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[Stefan Schweizer]

Can you please also list #138792 as implemented? It has a patch attached.

-Stefan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] should we do an EAPI bump now with features that are already implemented?

[Marius Mauch]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:14:57 +0200
Stefan Schweizer <genstef@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Can you please also list #138792 as implemented? It has a patch
> attached.

An unreleased (an incomplete regarding EAPI) patch does not count as
being implemented.

Marius

-- 
Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org>
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list