From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jg7v4-0005E4-MU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:30:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D33FE0334; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:30:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.228]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CB7E0334 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:30:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h30so1229515wxd.10 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:30:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=AiGjiVBc46EBR4Z9aFLp2l2sIwyTpWcv0kaojIdpTzY=; b=U7T6DUx4TptiOWttX2jTD1z3PLUPDtky1yDuutee91apq1KL0///dFl5kfX6ujzBRIl2kWTDMbGNnEUyjb9Cwz5y5vQw/QN29nq0+D+gx2x9v0ME+LBh1TbHWeHBaA+BEgLL3jbuEarQskHTW6xlVQpJzCW4fGI9axw6z9pqEdc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=nVoiGhdNVmvNvbNNlJW/JH+kBPYt4AeSe/XsFCrUl4w+WFiPrUzBmuiRxGYZqu6iVvSUDpvJ2vvckN2AhPk+RY+VnKm/wLY3dH7IIs4LMJCZ3M/r5+GTbZ1r4OZCBgZNB/p42LGQHO+BBj0ZBG0lQHa/loYnpNkqPJhp3KsVEg8= Received: by 10.114.53.1 with SMTP id b1mr8841006waa.86.1206923435469; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:30:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seldon ( [71.204.151.29]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m29sm7637301poh.12.2008.03.30.17.30.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:29:10 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename Message-ID: <20080331002910.GD9305@seldon.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> References: <20080330023902.GA8787@seldon.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <200803301224.10740.vapier@gentoo.org> <20080330191848.123a9af8@snowcone> <200803301459.40571.vapier@gentoo.org> <20080330234046.GB9305@seldon.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20080331004633.6529e55c@snowcone> <20080331000216.GC9305@seldon.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20080331010602.75423b82@snowcone> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eqp4TxRxnD4KrmFZ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080331010602.75423b82@snowcone> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Archives-Salt: 70561366-f8c2-441b-8ba6-38956f6c7ccc X-Archives-Hash: f98bab69d67bd4132917be0eb04e8f3e --eqp4TxRxnD4KrmFZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 01:06:02AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:02:16 -0700 > Brian Harring wrote: > > > But the PV does. > >=20 > > PV varying first of all, isn't incredibly grand from where I'm=20 > > sitting- yet more any versionator style code has to account for. =20 > > Second, so what? We're talking about 15 ebuilds here. It's not as=20 > > though the ebuilds are completely screwed in this- dealing with the > > PV change for the ebuild is pretty minor. >=20 > But pointless, since it gives no advantage. If there were something to > be gained from what you're proposing then maybe fifteen ebuilds > wouldn't be so big a deal, but there isn't. Conversation is going pretty cyclical, so unless *new* points are=20 brought up, I'll be waiting for new commentary. Going to reiterate this one more time; the proposal is simple enough;=20 if it's an implicit 0 via cpv parsing, it should *not* be explicitly=20 specified on disk. 'diffball-1.0_alpha0.ebuild' can just as easily be=20 specified as 'diffball-1.0_alpha.ebuild', 'diffball-1.0-r0.ebuild' can=20 just as easily be specified as 'diffball-1.0.ebuild'. Reiterating the gain: consistancy on disk, consistancy in dealing with=20 PV/PVR. As you keep point out, PV does vary- having the results of=20 ebuild execution change depending on whether or not you name your=20 ebuild 'diffball-1.0_alpha0.ebuild' or 'diffball-1.0_alpha.ebuild' is=20 *not* a feature, it is what you would classically call a "design=20 misfeature". PVR for 'diffball-1.0-r0.ebuild' being '1.0' instead of=20 '1.0-r0' is yet another argument for punting explicit -r0 on disk-=20 it's a gotcha, design flaw in the format. It's a simple tweak, with no real loss of functionality (lots of=20 claims, no single hard proof thus far). As spanky has stated, there=20 *is* a loss of ease of use in a small subset of ebuilds- worst case,=20 =2E06% ebuilds. Personally, I don't consider that minority worth=20 preserving since preserving that means leaving open several gotchas in=20 ebuild writing, and complicates interactions (both pm and dev). So... there it is. Would be rather nice to have ebuild devs weight in=20 on this one, rather then just package manager monkeys also (they're=20 the ones bound most by the change after all). Laid out the advantages=20 to this- kindly lay out the disadvantages, where this makes things=20 worse if you're looking for a response. ~harring --eqp4TxRxnD4KrmFZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH8DBWsiLx3HvNzgcRAvCyAKCwE96HQGqYkvGlB5pgGaP/oAVC0wCeOKZt /zY5cu4bU0h+rXFmHaZqfzk= =LGkt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eqp4TxRxnD4KrmFZ-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list