From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M5Mtv-0003ZV-QD for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 16 May 2009 16:38:21 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6475FE035B; Sat, 16 May 2009 16:38:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f219.google.com (mail-fx0-f219.google.com [209.85.220.219]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD69E035B for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 16:38:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so2342098fxm.34 for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 09:38:17 -0700 (PDT) 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=zZa69DfvaXCrfzreZKNHbccy8i6FcdB6aI54u3mNELY=; b=lLSGaSMC/iLYzKO34RZRBsfOQodJuLWM+rqukQygQTJwKrui/t5J4l6B2KmZLnt0Y/ ti+tWhbw+i929KRyapCEVLZ6jRay/6OcXOcoF9CKYwpY05iMppAaAfPftlGuOpKkKzxl 0D8a3+NYH4/rpkA3aviVrwdXnFc1MWYVhrSU0= 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=HgeNuJQ8yqddRgpV7kapj+X6iiiMUxvrunp0DUUlknml55+VeSOdgODe9zCF59usep uTbjy+fnUg88Pr1ocyX9XbQH5c1ALK5JKBCpmtbqA/a7+sWHu1rPkhxHote2PSB2rR3i M3gVaDoX9LqgUydRlk6bnF1oYTcYUnVF8HUDg= Received: by 10.103.107.1 with SMTP id j1mr3011432mum.99.1242491897157; Sat, 16 May 2009 09:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowmobile (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j6sm2665941mue.1.2009.05.16.09.38.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 16 May 2009 09:38:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 17:38:11 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55 Message-ID: <20090516173811.442b080a@snowmobile> In-Reply-To: <20090516163138.GA12276@eric.schwarzvogel.de> References: <20090516092710.GA3221@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <20090516151216.15efc792@snowmobile> <20090516153224.GA4964@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <20090516163421.32935cbc@snowmobile> <20090516154332.GA6646@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <20090516164903.261df865@snowmobile> <20090516155500.GA8506@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <20090516165752.7d0b9fdc@snowmobile> <20090516161558.GA9841@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <20090516171959.6934290c@snowmobile> <20090516163138.GA12276@eric.schwarzvogel.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.1; i686-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; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/NnTsPGRoxbZgPqk9YxLrYfH"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 7827c309-80f8-4aa5-a8f7-03458f9eafb6 X-Archives-Hash: 90cbe42184d8ff0b1003f7a51e6d2301 --Sig_/NnTsPGRoxbZgPqk9YxLrYfH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:31:38 +0200 Tobias Klausmann wrote: > On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > So we're not talking about .ebuild-2 for EAPI=3D2, .ebuild-3 for > > > EAPI=3D3 etc? That would just be silly and it was the first idea I > > > got when I saw the proposal. > >=20 > > Yes, yes we are. That's just one change, from a static string to a > > pattern for a string. > >=20 > > Heck, pretend GLEP 55 says .eapi-X.eb instead if it makes you happy. >=20 > It doesn't. I forsee a non-trivial amount of extra work, breakage > and pain with a moving extension. And not anywhere near enough > benefit in exchange for it. Why? What's the big deal with .ebuild-? or .eapi-?.eb instead of .ebuild? > I think wanting incremental updates for version specs is a dream > we should abandon. It's an easy goal that we can deliver without much work. Ignoring it, on the other hand, means holding Gentoo back unnecessarily every time we want to change something. > My point is this: from experience I suspect having a hard change > once and having easy progress on either side of it is preferable > to having mid-range complications all the time. .ebuild-? is not complicated. > > Well, I strongly doubt that anyone's already thought of all the > > useful changes we might want to make in the future, so I don't > > think proposing a solution that assumes that they have is a good > > idea. >=20 > I think it's a river we should think about once we reach it. Why? We know we'll reach it. Pretending we won't just means when we do reach it, we'll still be crossing it on foot rather than in a helicopter. > > Otherwise, in another year or two we'll just be back to "well we > > need to change extensions again, but let's just do it as a second > > one-off thing". >=20 > My experience tells me that with proper preparation of *this* > change, that can be pushed past the "in the next ten years" mark. > And that is close enough to "indefinitely" for me.=20 The only way it'll be "in the next ten years" rather than "in the next two years" is if Gentoo continues its current approach of making changes require every single person to agree... --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/NnTsPGRoxbZgPqk9YxLrYfH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoO6/YACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEy6ACghFC2A1eg7Qbv6rcp/HZyX8D/ bF4An2FOqUL/fTcuR/6atLj1u1sK4Ib0 =wBr0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/NnTsPGRoxbZgPqk9YxLrYfH--