Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1078 bytes --]

On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:39:40 -0700
Nick Fortino <nfortino@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the above, it should be clear that any argument which states
> some future improvement to the ebuild format  will be impossible based
> upon making the wrong choice between proposal 1 and proposal 2 must be
> invalid, as they have the same expressive power. Note that allowable
> algorithms for which the proof works includes caching and version
> ordering as well as the simple execution of the ebuild.

Unfortunately, your argument is entirely wrong, as can be illustrated
by a simple counter-example that you would already know about, had you
read the GLEP or the thread.

With EAPI in a fixed format, it is impossible to allow extensions to the
version format in future EAPIs. Even given a fixed format and a constant
extension, adding foo-1.23-rc1.ebuild will cause breakage, but adding
foo-1.23-rc1.ebuild-4 will not.

This has already been covered at length, and is explained in the GLEP.
Why did you disregard this when posting your 'proof'?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]