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 1Lbdyx-0004Dp-1o for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:48:39 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BC3EE04D9; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:48:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81CB3E04D9 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:48:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF62940240 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:48:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (toz.strangled.net [82.232.126.136]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B1B940220 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:48:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:48:27 +0100 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) Message-ID: <20090223174827.7a7906ff@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20090223161956.189ab5ea@snowcone> References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> <1235378286.31617.6.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A26B84.7040006@gentoo.org> <1235383347.12908.0.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A2B276.1000109@gentoo.org> <49A2C40D.3060601@gentoo.org> <20090223155320.4b9f16fd@snowcone> <20090223171316.5d8f94d0@gentoo.org> <20090223161956.189ab5ea@snowcone> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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; boundary="Sig_/VVj1rf=quGGC7Nm1P11W3fe"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 8281e29b-8861-477c-904f-a9efd0d750dc X-Archives-Hash: e8f901dfab6bac4685ca1b1dd754725d --Sig_/VVj1rf=quGGC7Nm1P11W3fe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:19:56 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:13:16 +0100 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > Which begs the question: is it really worth allowing it? > > If we only allow constant assignments (which is an implicit > > restriction in the file extension version) then this can be parsed > > easily with grep/tr/awk/etc and can be the magic eapi guessing. Of > > course the tree has to be checked before implementing this and we'll > > have to wait a good amount of time before breaking the current eapi > > bash-parsing but I'm not aware of any eapi proposal that would break > > the current behavior and would be usable in the main tree within a > > reasonable amount of time such that we can't ignore backward > > compatibility. >=20 > ...and then we have to do the whole thing again every time something > new crops up. Please give an example because I fail to see how. > EAPI was supposed to solve this, and profile eapi and > GLEP 55 finish the job. Repeatedly going back and saying "oh, we have > to wait another year or more again" is unacceptable. Had we found a compromise at the beginning of glep55, that extra year would be over by now... Alexis. --Sig_/VVj1rf=quGGC7Nm1P11W3fe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmi01sACgkQvFcC4BYPU0plywCfWLG8cxKH1AXePWcdqETR8yPm Tl8AnR18HoOid57u9YvcK6lJD+Ekq1AU =S9Em -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/VVj1rf=quGGC7Nm1P11W3fe--