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 1Lby82-0006fN-KZ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:19:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 50F74E0350; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:19:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (qw-out-1920.google.com [74.125.92.148]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3AFE0350 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:19:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 9so944515qwj.10 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:19:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=rY2QLMIEwz/7W7CRfOoqSTkSB6e3K2XfmdzV4JHmJP0=; b=q5I8uDmID8PafGX3DwLFUhxF7kfpjFR8U+IMjv7yHhqYb5RkIAReNUE0YR/nTvngwe FsLh1+rDyKjoSdmgrDPFM8ocS9DD6OAs7jPAgdSPmePGkPoNRN5723LqDgqup4QwlkDY IGeuCPJAsEAmMM1QoTMR4mE5xckWiG4TL7NW4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=riu2eE1YYyLIBTEJgfk3LV9MU+SD15OwAKrC/H3ImOU5o6wsKls45jXLWDa1Burd6+ jbzK58epWsxOW8Wkow02W1pUV+CVaoF6SggrxJYXz/zg64Pu5ZPuogXF+Q4Qma+4SZyj LP2ojo3exJU29rnO4ALCVL7tzqMnKS/yEzvg0= Received: by 10.224.37.17 with SMTP id v17mr8096066qad.134.1235485160837; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:19:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowcone (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e5sm9102645ugf.34.2009.02.24.06.19.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:19:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:19:12 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) Message-ID: <20090224141912.0a666a17@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <49A39CE7.4010201@gentoo.org> References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <1234450419.20950.2.camel@localhost> <20090212160045.GB3642@comet> <20090212161644.GD3642@comet> <20090212162103.256b003f@snowcone> <20090212171055.GA3652@comet> <20090212172109.778fb268@snowcone> <20090212173743.GD3652@comet> <20090212180350.0d9a9df5@snowcone> <1235037961.13198.779.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> <49A39CE7.4010201@gentoo.org> 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_/Bfz9yrnA.CW1GJwA6m2Hf3v"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 05c40552-3619-48a7-ae5f-d5a0e45600a2 X-Archives-Hash: 2dafe9989991a2e074321f17abd83eb4 --Sig_/Bfz9yrnA.CW1GJwA6m2Hf3v Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:08:23 +0100 Luca Barbato wrote: > Is there any technical merit in putting eapi in the file extension > while we could restrict the format the same way in file and have > about the same, negligible, performance hit? (I used warm cache since > you need the file anyway so you don't spend time to look it up twice > or put it in cache twice) Uh, your benchmarks are nonsense. That is not how metadata checks work. By parsing the ebuilds you're talking doubling the number of file reads required to get the job done, and massively increasing the number of seeks required. But that isn't even the main issue. The main issue is that even if you retroactively pretend that all ebuilds are in a format they're not, and ignore the breakage, and then wait for a year for package managers to try to parse your new format, you *still* can't change name or versioning rules. Again, these are all things that have been discussed at length previously. Please either come up with a legitimate technical objection, or admit that you've seen the light. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/Bfz9yrnA.CW1GJwA6m2Hf3v Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmkAeMACgkQ96zL6DUtXhE9FQCgsxzXbieH6G5lbnBEtka/bByQ d2YAnjU+myJFgFfE27UBOY9iymwt4E+9 =KWUO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Bfz9yrnA.CW1GJwA6m2Hf3v--